Posts
Just before sitting down to write this my attention was pointed to the following:
Perhaps we ought to hire Pussy Riot for all our analysis and commentary on Russian politics?!! lol.
Why
Putin has 80 % popularity in Russia
Seemorerocks
"People
in Russia say that those who do not regret the collapse of the Soviet
Union have no heart, and those that do regret it have no brain. We do
not regret this, we simply state the fact and know that we need to
look ahead, not backwards. We will not allow the past to drag us down
and stop us from moving ahead. We understand where we should move.
But we must act based on a clear understanding of what happened."
V.V.Putin
The last couple of mornings I have been waking up in the mornings with some version of the above question in my mind. Various thoughts have been going through my mind about the "Putin phenomenon" as well as about the collapse of the Soviet Union and its subsequent history.
I have to make clear from the outset that these are the views of an outsider. I have been to the country several times (mostly during the Soviet period - I was married for a time to a Leningrader), only once during the post-Soviet period.
So, I do not have the benefit of an inside knowledge but I do have a good sense of the culture and history of Russia and am able to look sympathetically from the side.
As I write this I realise my age - that many people who read this will have no firsthand knowledge of the Soviet period and will possibly be only vaguely aware of the collapse and the disastrous years of the 1990's. It is essential that we are reminded of this history for, in my mind, context is everything.
"SOVIET REALITY'
In the Russia that I knew (at the end of the 70's) the economy was right in the middle of the period of stagnation. When I visited I would be given a whole shopping list of goods to bring. These could be resold on the black market and go towards financing the move out of the Soviet Union.
I can remember visiting GUM (the department store on Red Square) with Natasha and can recall the feeling of elation on managing to score a packet of Dutch washing power!
This was a period when Soviet citizens spent hours standing in queues for basics and grocery store shelves were empty while the private markets (tolerated by the authorities out of necessity) were full of expensive food grown by collective farmers on the side).
You can get a good sense of 'Soviet reality" ( 'советская действительность ' was an official buzzword of the era) through its jokes.
What that I remember went like this:
"What will it be like when they introduce socialism in the Sahara desert? Very little change but then at the end of the First Five Year Plan there will be a shortage of sand"
If you want a good background to the collapse of the Soviet Union you can't go much further than this series (almost lost to posterity) Russian Revolution in the late 1980's - early 90's. The first part is HERE
THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET UNION
.jpg)
I have to make clear from the outset that these are the views of an outsider. I have been to the country several times (mostly during the Soviet period - I was married for a time to a Leningrader), only once during the post-Soviet period.
So, I do not have the benefit of an inside knowledge but I do have a good sense of the culture and history of Russia and am able to look sympathetically from the side.
As I write this I realise my age - that many people who read this will have no firsthand knowledge of the Soviet period and will possibly be only vaguely aware of the collapse and the disastrous years of the 1990's. It is essential that we are reminded of this history for, in my mind, context is everything.
"SOVIET REALITY'
In the Russia that I knew (at the end of the 70's) the economy was right in the middle of the period of stagnation. When I visited I would be given a whole shopping list of goods to bring. These could be resold on the black market and go towards financing the move out of the Soviet Union.
I can remember visiting GUM (the department store on Red Square) with Natasha and can recall the feeling of elation on managing to score a packet of Dutch washing power!
This was a period when Soviet citizens spent hours standing in queues for basics and grocery store shelves were empty while the private markets (tolerated by the authorities out of necessity) were full of expensive food grown by collective farmers on the side).
You can get a good sense of 'Soviet reality" ( 'советская действительность ' was an official buzzword of the era) through its jokes.
What that I remember went like this:
"What will it be like when they introduce socialism in the Sahara desert? Very little change but then at the end of the First Five Year Plan there will be a shortage of sand"
If you want a good background to the collapse of the Soviet Union you can't go much further than this series (almost lost to posterity) Russian Revolution in the late 1980's - early 90's. The first part is HERE
THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET UNION
By
the time that Brezhnev died (and was succeeded, in close
succession by Andropov and Chernenko the country was (like its
leader) sclerotic and so, was badly in need of change.
Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985 and after a disastrous attempt to force the country into teetotalism engaged in a program to reform the economy (perestroika) and democratise the country (glasnost).
From what I can see (and I know there will be more people that disagree, than agree), for the first time in its history Russia was ruled by someone who was motivated by a real desire to reform the country and introduce democracy while maintaining the Soviet and (by-and-large) socialist character of the country.
He is perhaps, according to historian, Stephen F Cohen, the only example of a leader who was willing to give away his own power.
As an aside I will say I have been influenced in what I say Stephen F Cohen's Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to Putin. He is, in my opinion, one of the very few western academics to look at recent Russian history from a reasonably objective and non-ideological point-of-view. He is, however, avowedly sympathetic to Gorbachev).
Cohen disputes the idea that the USSR collapsed because of the economy and argues that the economy could have limped on for some time but it was politics that destroyed the Union, essentially the existence on the historical stage at the same time of two larger-than-life figures, Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev.
Paraphrasing another aphorism ("without Kerensky there could have been no Lenin") Cohen says "without Gorbachev there could have been no Yeltsin"
Stephen Cohen reserves much of the blame for what happened on Boris Yeltsin, who, (as head of the Russian Federation motivated primarily by political power destroyed the Union by top secret negotiation. Yeltsin was consumed by hatred of Gorbachev.
Cohen maintains that there was no public consensus in favour of ending the Union; at the beginning of 1991 polls taken show that a majority of Soviet citizens wanted to maintain the Soviet Union, even in Ukraine.
By this time, however Gorbachev was reviled, by the public at large (blamed for increasing privation) as well as conservatives and reformers in the Communist Party alike.
In June, 1991 Yeltsin won 57% of the popular vote in the democratic presidential elections for the Russian republic, defeating Gorbachev's preferred candidate, Nikolai Ryzhkov who got just 16% of the vote, and four other candidates.
This was a top-secret, undemocratic and illegal act by Yeltsin (apparently he was drunk much of the time). This was the trigger for the collapse of the the Soviet state.
Stephen Cohen reserves much of the blame for what happened on Boris Yeltsin. He was motivated very largely by craving for power and his actions at Belovezha were largely motoivated by hatred for Gorbachev .
Beyond these purely political considerations I would say that although political machinations played a major role in provoking the actual collapse (which came as a surprise even to Washington), there were several underlying factors without which the collapse would have been impossible
LOSS OF BELIEF
One factor that I think is absolutely indispensable is that from 1960's belief in the underlying ideology started to erode and by the end of the existence of the Soviet state nobody believed in anything any more.
An underlying cynicism is reflected by the expression
"They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work"
Two anecdotes might help to understand this.
In the first case, the KGB authorities would regularly turn up to search and ransack the flat of the famous Russian poet, Anna Akhmatova, especially on those days that her son visited her. On one of these occasions after ransacking her apartment the KGB colonel knocked on the flat next door and when the fearful neighbour opened her door she was old: "You look after Anna Andreyena. After all she is our national treasure!"
The second is when a Russian friend of mine came to leave the Soviet Union for Israel in the mid- 70's. He was taken aside for interrogation by another KGB man who asked him why he was leaving the Soviet Union. My friend honestly said, "because I hate the regime" "Why do you need to leave - I hate the regime too!"
Finally, he was told (unlike most of the emigrants who either smuggled or bribed officials to get valuable art out of the country), that they would let him go because "you are an idealist".
Quite simply, nobody believed in anything any more, so when the events of autumn and winter, 1990 came along nobody had any investment any more in the Soviet Union, including the communists who voted for the disestablishment of the country that sustained them and their power.
The other aspects that are little talked about, except by a small number of people is the role of Peak Oil and of the United States.
The United States did its best to undermine the Soviet Union economically and militarily. The Soviet Union was in a position of increasing its military expenditure at a time when its economy was stagnating. To make things worse its production of oil was starting to peak (with the technology it had available at the time) and the world price of oil fell sharply at the beginning of a period of low oil prices that began at this time and lasted right through to about 2007 when world production started to peak.
The Soviets were more or less lured into Afghanistan by continuing American aid to the Mujahadeen and American aid kept them there throughout the 80's.
All of this helped to bankrupt an already inefficient and stagnating economy so that when a loosening of the political chains and a transition to a market economy which began already under perestroika produced the disastrous political events of 1990 the country was ready for total collapse.
I do not personally believe that Gorbachev deserves to take all the responsibility for the collapse of the Soviet state although objectively this is the case. Most significantly, in return for guarantees that were betrayed by the West, Gorbachev allowed the fall of the Wall in Berlin and the withdrawal of Soviet troops (in a fairly chaotic manner) from Eastern Europe.
Whatever the rightness or wrongness of this it has led to the situation of today where instead of disbanding with the fall of the USSR NATO has expanded eastwards and is now threatening Russian from former Soviet satellites that are now part of NATO.
THE YELTSIN YEARS
Cohen disputes the idea that the USSR collapsed because of the economy and argues that the economy could have limped on for some time but it was politics that destroyed the Union, essentially the existence on the historical stage at the same time of two larger-than-life figures, Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev.
Paraphrasing another aphorism ("without Kerensky there could have been no Lenin") Cohen says "without Gorbachev there could have been no Yeltsin"
Stephen Cohen reserves much of the blame for what happened on Boris Yeltsin, who, (as head of the Russian Federation motivated primarily by political power destroyed the Union by top secret negotiation. Yeltsin was consumed by hatred of Gorbachev.
Cohen maintains that there was no public consensus in favour of ending the Union; at the beginning of 1991 polls taken show that a majority of Soviet citizens wanted to maintain the Soviet Union, even in Ukraine.
By this time, however Gorbachev was reviled, by the public at large (blamed for increasing privation) as well as conservatives and reformers in the Communist Party alike.
In June, 1991 Yeltsin won 57% of the popular vote in the democratic presidential elections for the Russian republic, defeating Gorbachev's preferred candidate, Nikolai Ryzhkov who got just 16% of the vote, and four other candidates.
On
18 August 1991, a coup against Gorbachev was launched by the
government members opposed to perestroika. Gorbachev was held in
Crimea while Yeltsin raced to the White House of Russia (residence of
the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR) in Moscow to defy the coup, making a
memorable speech from atop the turret of a tank onto which he had
climbed. The White House was surrounded by the military but the
troops defected in the face of mass popular demonstrations. By 21
August most of the coup leaders had fled Moscow and Gorbachev was
"rescued" from Crimea and then returned to Moscow. Yeltsin
was subsequently hailed by his supporters around the world for
rallying mass opposition to the coup
Although
restored to his position, Gorbachev had been destroyed politically.
Neither union nor Russian power structures heeded his commands as
support had swung over to Yeltsin. Taking advantage of the situation,
Yeltsin began taking what remained of the Soviet government, ministry
by ministry—including the Kremlin. On 6 November 1991, Yeltsin
issued a decree banning all Communist Party activities on Russian
soil.
In early December 1991, Ukraine voted for independence from the Soviet Union. A week later, on 8 December, Yeltsin met Ukrainian president Leonid Kravchuk and the leader of Belarus, Stanislav Shushkevich, in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. In the Belavezha Accords, the three presidents announced the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the formation of a voluntary Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in its place
Stephen Cohen reserves much of the blame for what happened on Boris Yeltsin. He was motivated very largely by craving for power and his actions at Belovezha were largely motoivated by hatred for Gorbachev .
Beyond these purely political considerations I would say that although political machinations played a major role in provoking the actual collapse (which came as a surprise even to Washington), there were several underlying factors without which the collapse would have been impossible
LOSS OF BELIEF
One factor that I think is absolutely indispensable is that from 1960's belief in the underlying ideology started to erode and by the end of the existence of the Soviet state nobody believed in anything any more.
An underlying cynicism is reflected by the expression
"They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work"
Two anecdotes might help to understand this.
In the first case, the KGB authorities would regularly turn up to search and ransack the flat of the famous Russian poet, Anna Akhmatova, especially on those days that her son visited her. On one of these occasions after ransacking her apartment the KGB colonel knocked on the flat next door and when the fearful neighbour opened her door she was old: "You look after Anna Andreyena. After all she is our national treasure!"
The second is when a Russian friend of mine came to leave the Soviet Union for Israel in the mid- 70's. He was taken aside for interrogation by another KGB man who asked him why he was leaving the Soviet Union. My friend honestly said, "because I hate the regime" "Why do you need to leave - I hate the regime too!"
Finally, he was told (unlike most of the emigrants who either smuggled or bribed officials to get valuable art out of the country), that they would let him go because "you are an idealist".
Quite simply, nobody believed in anything any more, so when the events of autumn and winter, 1990 came along nobody had any investment any more in the Soviet Union, including the communists who voted for the disestablishment of the country that sustained them and their power.
The other aspects that are little talked about, except by a small number of people is the role of Peak Oil and of the United States.
The United States did its best to undermine the Soviet Union economically and militarily. The Soviet Union was in a position of increasing its military expenditure at a time when its economy was stagnating. To make things worse its production of oil was starting to peak (with the technology it had available at the time) and the world price of oil fell sharply at the beginning of a period of low oil prices that began at this time and lasted right through to about 2007 when world production started to peak.
The Soviets were more or less lured into Afghanistan by continuing American aid to the Mujahadeen and American aid kept them there throughout the 80's.
All of this helped to bankrupt an already inefficient and stagnating economy so that when a loosening of the political chains and a transition to a market economy which began already under perestroika produced the disastrous political events of 1990 the country was ready for total collapse.
I do not personally believe that Gorbachev deserves to take all the responsibility for the collapse of the Soviet state although objectively this is the case. Most significantly, in return for guarantees that were betrayed by the West, Gorbachev allowed the fall of the Wall in Berlin and the withdrawal of Soviet troops (in a fairly chaotic manner) from Eastern Europe.
Whatever the rightness or wrongness of this it has led to the situation of today where instead of disbanding with the fall of the USSR NATO has expanded eastwards and is now threatening Russian from former Soviet satellites that are now part of NATO.
THE YELTSIN YEARS
Just
days after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Yeltsin embarked on a programme of radical economic reform. Unlike
Gorbachev's reforms, which sought to expand democracy in the
socialist system, the new regime aimed to completely dismantle
socialism and fully implement capitalism—converting the world's
largest command economy into a free-market one and a 500 -day programme of privatisation was embarked on.
This was the period when western "specialists" were brought in to instruct on how to privatise and build an economy on their neo-liberal lines.
It was a disastrous period for the Russian people, when living standards fell precipitously as did life expectancy. Major causes of death during this period were alcoholic poisoning and violent death.
I remember a film from the mid-90's which starred Sergei Bodrov, called Brat (Brother) which portrayed the chaos and violence of the era. i can recommend it if you have time.
This was the era of robber barons, known to the world now as the oligarchs who used the opportunities presented to them during the closing years of perestroika and the privatisation to strip the assets of the Soviet state and enrich themselves.
The process of "privitatisation" was known popularly (and appropriately) as PRIKHVATISATSIYA (прихватизация - grab-it-isation).
The "democracy" of the Yeltsin era was known as DER'MOKRATIYA - (дермократия - shit-ocracy)
The following two-part documentary on the rise and fall of the Russian oligarchs, which provides an excellent insight into the phenomenon sometimes in the words of the characters themselves.
I like to avoid the danger of the anti-semitism label but it is true that the majority of the Russian oligarchs spoke about here are Jewish, just as it is true that the majority of the original Bolshevik leadership after the October, 1917 cup were also Jews.
The western press would like us to believe that this was a time of "democracy" and "reform" under Yeltsin before Putin came long and destroyed democracy.
This documentary gives the lie to that as it shows the machinations behind the scene throughout the Yeltsin years, the attack on the Russian parliament in 2003 that led to the death of 150 people until the election was bought by the now all-powerful oligarchs who dictated to politicians, officials and media alike what they could and couldn't do and say.
It was Vladimir Putin who was brought to power by oligarch- mafia chief, Boris Berezovsky in the hope that he would do his bidding (and with Yeltsin's bidding) who gathered the oligarchs together to tell them that their era was over and they would have to be a normal part of Russian society.
If you look across the western media the view is that Putin's struggle against the oligarchs like Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky, Gusinsky and others the view is that this was part of Putin's crushing of "democracy" in Russia.
Privatiser Putin begins to win war against Russia's mafia (24 September 2002)
World power in oil and equities is erasing wild east image of the 90s
"Mr
Putin has brought more discipline and stability to the political and
economic scene through a series of reforms , aiming to follow the
lead of China by taking Russia into the World Trade Organisation.
He
has just shrugged off political opposition to push through
legislation privatising the ultimate symbol of the Soviet era: Mother
Earth. Domestic companies are queueing to buy Russian agricultural
land, including the best plots that were controlled by the
cooperatives.
Mr
Putin has brought more discipline and stability to the political and
economic scene through a series of reforms , aiming to follow the
lead of China by taking Russia into the World Trade Organisation.
He
has just shrugged off political opposition to push through
legislation privatising the ultimate symbol of the Soviet era: Mother
Earth. Domestic companies are queuing to buy Russian agricultural
land, including the best plots that were controlled by the
cooperatives.....
Corruption
and bribery by state officials are still serious problems for
businesses in Russia while a
relatively small number of oligarchs still control the vast bulk of
the nation's wealth.
Competition
regulations are weak and Mr
Putin knows he must take on some of Russia's biggest vested interests
if he is to tackle crucial issues such as restructuring the civil
service and the judiciary.
Analysts
such as Christopher Granville at Russian investment bank United
Financial Group believe the country has a bright future but he
expects no big boost in Russian stocks until presidential elections
are over in March 2004. "It is still a good safe haven in the
short term," he says - words that would have sounded ridiculous
two years ago.
The above article dates from a period before the narrative changed.
Now Russia is, according to western media (led these days by the Guardian), is now an aggressive, anti-democratic, mafia state led by a tyrant, Putin.
HOW HAS RUSSIA CHANGED UNDER PUTIN
Putin has good reason to be popular among the Russian populace at large.
Putin has cracked down on organised crime, reduced the worst excesses of the oligarchs and taken on corruption.
Putin himself is the first to admit that all of these remain problems but the situation is much improved. I remember Putin's words in a recent interview, corruption is a particular problem we have in Russia".
Russia remains a country with a high level of crime, in particular, homicides. But comparing with 2000, the year with the greatest number of murders (41,000) the situation with 16,700 murders in 2011 is much improved.
When it checked it out it appears that since 2002 Russian has a system of social security and despite it being woefully inadequate to provide an income to those affected, does have an unemployment benefit. Pensioners in the Crimea after it was incorporated into the Russian Federation saw their pensions double.
“Since
2002 Russia has adopted the pension system including obligatory
pension insurance, state pension support and non-state pension
insurance.
In
Russia all citizens of elderly age receive pensions independent of
their seniority. The standard labour pension age is: 55 for women, 60
for men; social pension: 60 for women, 65 for men.”
In terms of the political situation I think that Stephen Cohen characterised it well when he said Russia does not have free and fair elections but they are more free and air than at any time during the post-Soviet period.
The United States, with its manipulation and electoral fraud should not be the one to cast the first stone.
In terms of freedom and democracy, one just needs to look at video footage of demonstrations in Moscow against the results of recent election, and even demonstrations by neo-nazis in favour of the regime in Kiev and compare that with #Occupy and police brutality in Ferguson to get one's answer.
Yes, Putin did crack down on some privately-owned TV stations that were controlled by oligarchs and used in their attempt to gain political power, and the media is largely controlled by the state, in terms of many of the issues that concern us there is a wide range of views expressed across the political spectrum.
In terms of telling the truth about what is happening in Ukraine and relations between Russia and the West I think I prefer Russian coverage overall, thank you very much.
While life, no doubt continues to be very difficult for ordinary Russians it has improved greatly and there continues (as best I can see from outside) to be optimism. This contrasts with the West where both living standards have deteriorated greatly and the political situation is dire.
Russia, although it has great challenges (many of which are created directly by America - such as sanctions) still has a positive outlook while the West moves towards collapse.
In the present geopolitical climate Russia has stable leadership and with the threat from the American Empire Putin is the one factor that may stand between stability and a Moscow Maidan. Putin may need to be as wily as Fidel Castro to avoid retribution from the Empire.
I pray that he does not fall victim to poisoning or a plane "accident".
If I was Russian, despite any reservations, I would be among the 80 per cent that support him
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.