New Dictator in the Kremlin?

Éomer of Rohan

Putin strengthening hold on the Kremlin.

The Kremlin bites back...

It seems as though things are not as people would have us believe in the great russian liberal capitalist bourgeois democracy.

There has been talk circulating for some time that Putin was not going to surrender hold of the Kremlin lightly but this is serious in-house cleaning.

It is not however undermining democracy as I have heard several political pundits claim - this is Putin removing the business support for some of the news agencies which failed to run supporting articles as far back as the Kursk crisis. It is one despotic side undermining the hold of a different despotic side.

I find it interesting that at this time, Russia is undergoing a transformation on the international scene; increasingly it appears as though Putin wants to be the supreme and unchallengeable power in Russia while putting Russia back to the fore in international politics, with Sharon petitioning the Kremlin over the possibility of Iranian nuclear weapons...

Anyone else think that things in Russia beginning a long slide off a higher cliff than that which people think Russia fell off during the October 1917 revolution?

flogen

are you suggesting a possible coup? or a return to more socialist ideals?

Putin has always struck me as someone to put things back the way they were, whether he can do that and succeed is another thing.

didnt he make the vodka companies public property a while ago... basically took them off the owners.... sounds somewhat lenin-ish... and he is an ex KGB top-dog... id say hes all for the old school

Flogen

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Flogen
are you suggesting a possible coup? or a return to more socialist ideals?

I'd say with Putin's background in the KGB that a coup if he lost the upcoming election is not unlikely.

As for a return to more socialist ideals, no. He may wish to consider re-nationalising certain industries but the world has gone too far down the free market road for that to be feasible in one country. Please note though that such a move would not be born of socialist ideals but rather of nationalist ones. Besides, Russia's slow but sure economic recovery after the 1998 disaster depends on strict prostitution...I mean adherence to the WTO guidelines.

I would say he is 'all for the old school' meaning however that he wants a return to firm centralising government and an erosion of the semi-autonomy that some regions in Russia have gained (most notably resource rich Siberia) not that he wants to return to Stalinism.

bonkey

Has anyone considered that the people that Putin is going after may actually be guilty of the fraud, tax-evasion, etc. etc. etc. that he has been claiming?

Stiglitz, in his "Globalization and its Discontents" work, discussed the massive amounts of money the Russian oil-oligarchy made through abusing the financial aid which the nation received.

Isn't it just possible that - whilst also clearly trying to get every advantage out of it possible - Putin is actually trying to clean up the place???

I've seen no media reports that actually discuss whether or not the allegations are baseless, or indeed whether or not the actions performed fell within the established rule of law within Russia.

I notice with interest that the two articles discuss things differently.

USAToday tells us that the US state department (or somesuch) is concerned about these actions.

TapaipeiTimes, on the other hand, tells us that this is the continuation of an ongoing 4-month investigation into Yukos, and draws attention to the fact that the oligarchy made its billions buying up what was sold off in the privatisation auctions, which were highly dubious in nature (again, see Stiglitz or countless other sources for more on this).

So, while the US paper presents this more as a corrupt government cracking down on the successful capitalists, the Taipei one tells us that this is the latest move in an ongoing series of investigations about people who - at the very least - made the vast majority of their monies in dubious ways.

To top it all off, we hear complaints about how the government is cracking down on "free media", whilst also telling us that it is a protectionist measure as men like Khodorkovsky were heavily investing in opposition parties. Depending on where you read, you will also hear that Khodorkovsky - or some of his peers - have political aspirations themselves.

Now, consider what you all say about Burlosconi and his use of his media to further his political aims, and ask whether or not the same criticism and standards are being applied equally. For Burlie, significant involvement with politics and media is a no-no and should be stopped. For Khodorkovsky and his ilk, its a yes-yes, and stopping it is outrageously wrong.

Personally, I think there is far too little known about the case yet - at least in the public domain - to be able to make any sort of intelligent comment on who is right or wrong in their actions here. Putin may be trying to hold on to his power illegally, or he may be doing all in his power to prevent the nation being effectively taken over by an multi-billionaire oil-cartel who will simply turn the entire system to furthering their own profits.

So I'll play the waiting game for now, I think...

jc

Éomer of Rohan

I agree with you JC - but the point I am making is that Putin is effectively the head of one cartel while Khodorkovsky is a significant member if not the head of another cartel - cartels which are controlling every aspect of Russian political life.

I have read reports in which the media link Putin (on admittedly shaky evidence) to the Dolgorukis; if Khodorkovsky is being investigated for fraud, why is Putin not being investigated for mafia connections? The fact is there is no democracy in Russia and this may become formal very soon...

Geromino

Has anyone considered that the people that Putin is going after may actually be guilty of the fraud, tax-evasion, etc. etc. etc. that he has been claiming?

Isn't it just possible that - whilst also clearly trying to get every advantage out of it possible - Putin is actually trying to clean up the place???

I have no doubt that Putin wants to clean up, to some degree, the corruption in Russian politics and governmental affairs. However, the way he went about it causes great concern. For instance, what would you think if the current Irish President arrested one of the top political oppenants in the middle of the night for tax evasion and using former tactics similar to that under the former regime? All of you would freek out. This is what Putin did and as a result, Putin lost two of his top lieutenants in government (which will make his political agenda even harder to get passed in the Ducha). His trust by the common Russia will also erode to some degree and the current economic reforms are in great jeapordy (those approved by the World Bank). For those of you who do not know, Putin has been fighting corruption, tax evasion, and embezzlement since 1999 or 2000, alt least as I can remember.

Second, as for Russia accepting capitalistic ideals, I have yet to see this happen on a grand scale. If you compare China and Russia, you would notice great differences in the two countries. Also, a lot of the economic problems came from the Boris Yetsin government in which Putin inherited. I will give some links to this tomorrow, if you do not mind.

"Darkness at Dawn" by David Satter gives some great insight in the Putin government. I have found it well balanced and thorough, IMO,

mr_angry

Russian politics is far too murky to judge. Nobody is "clean". I'd be very surprised if any of the media know the whole story, and so each party is just putting their own spin on it.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
For instance, what would you think if the current Irish President arrested one of the top political oppenants in the middle of the night for tax evasion and using former tactics similar to that under the former regime? All of you would freek out.

I wouldn't. I'd insist that the allegations be proven right sharp quick.

Also, I don't think its entirely fair to bill Khodorkovsky as a "top political opponent". He's more of a financier for the top political opponents. If someone were to arrest an Irish, American, UK, or any other nationality of billionaire who was heavily involved in pushing a political agenda with aspirations of entering politics themselves at some later date...I'd say the exact same thing - prove the allegations right sharp quick. And if you prove them, then someone better show pretty sharply that the benificiaries of the money (the political parties receiving significant fundage, etc.) were not in any way involved.

and the current economic reforms are in great jeapordy (those approved by the World Bank).

Considering that it was those self-same reforms which helped lead to the current fiasco, the creation of the billionaire oligarchy - at the cost of the Russian people and its economy, I might add - I wouldn't want to put too much empahsis on that. Again - Stiglitz' analysis of this is quite thorough.

For those of you who do not know, Putin has been fighting corruption, tax evasion, and embezzlement since 1999 or 2000, alt least as I can remember.

I'm not trying to defend Putin, I should point out. I'm just not sure that one should criticise one alleged criminal for initiating legal action against another alleged criminal.

Would we rather the alternative (assuming the allegations are true for a moment) that we have more criminals, rather than fewer???

Second, as for Russia accepting capitalistic ideals, I have yet to see this happen on a grand scale. If you compare China and Russia, you would notice great differences in the two countries.

Yup. One significant one being that China told the World Bank to go stuff its economic reforms, whilst Russia did not.

"Darkness at Dawn" by David Satter gives some great insight in the Putin government. I have found it well balanced and thorough, IMO,

Thanks. I'll check it out...I was looking for some more "serious" reading material...

jc

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
Yup. One significant one being that China told the World Bank to go stuff its economic reforms, whilst Russia did not...
jc [/B]

Contrary to what you might have heard, stuffing "the world bank" does not exactly equate to market reform or even accepting World Bank recommendations does not actually equate to market reforms either. Actually, it was former President Jiang that iniated the reforms with farmers "selling their products" to the highest bidder that started the process and the reforms have come from within, mainly, with only a few helpful suggestions coming from the outside (mainly the US and Japan). China has accepted free trade more with open arms than Russia has. Further, China also placed control regs that no one, would take advantage of the economic sitation. However, China still pegs their currency to the US dollar and there still is no "ownership'" of land, generally. You just lease the land from the government and own the operating license for your company. You also have three entrepreneurs on the ruling council and not a member of the Communist Party. You are having local elections in some of the autonomous regions instead of being dictated by Beijing. I have read recently that President Hu's daughter married Mr. Moe, a entrepreneur worth millions. Culturally, this is very significant since the "princelings" (sons and daughters of the ruling class) only married within their social sphere. Entrepreneurs had no respect in Chinese society, especially in the upper echelons, and were viewed as a "necessary evil."

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
Considering that it was those self-same reforms which helped lead to the current fiasco, the creation of the billionaire oligarchy - at the cost of the Russian people and its economy, I might add - I wouldn't want to put too much empahsis on that. Again - Stiglitz' analysis of this is quite thorough.[/B]

The problems for Russia were not the reforms themselves, but the misallocations of those reforms. Let me explain. When the Soviet Union fell and there was a need for alternative solutions, leaders of the IMF, World Bank and other leading financial institutions, both govenrment and private, had to teach the Russian finance ministry even the basic concepts of economics like what is a bank, what is money and how is money improtant, simple barter exchange rules, etc. However, the main problem was that Presidnet Yeltsin did not

I'm not trying to defend Putin, I should point out. I'm just not sure that one should criticise one alleged criminal for initiating legal action against another alleged criminal.

Would we rather the alternative (assuming the allegations are true for a moment) that we have more criminals, rather than fewer???
jc

I am not defending Putin either, however, both Putin and Khodorkovsky are very much alike, but each with their own form "influence" In order to succeed in Russia, economically, you must utilize the former KGB and GRU contacts that now abound in Russia. These "little Czars" have more influence than the world knows or has known.

Also, I don't think its entirely fair to bill Khodorkovsky as a "top political opponent". He's more of a financier for the top political opponents. If someone were to arrest an Irish, American, UK, or any other nationality of billionaire who was heavily involved in pushing a political agenda with aspirations of entering politics themselves at some later date...I'd say the exact same thing - prove the allegations right sharp quick. And if you prove them, then someone better show pretty sharply that the benificiaries of the money (the political parties receiving significant fundage, etc.) were not in any way involved.

Khodorkovsky is very much a political oppenant of Putin and has the financial and political opportunities to succceed. The key would be if the people of Russia now fear Putin as another Soviet style Yeltsin or would they trust Putin is leading the country back into its glory days. This is the fervant hope of the Russian people and has been their dream since Peter the Great.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
China has accepted free trade more with open arms than Russia has.

I accept this.

However, it is also true that Russia was more-or-less forced to adopt certain economic "reforms" at the World Bank's behest, and these reforms have led to a slow-down in the rate of introduction of the implementation of free-trade etc.

Stiglitz' main criticism has been that nations like Russia who have implemented WB-mandated reforms have consistenly fared off worse than those who have refused to do so (and lost WB support/loans consequently) and implemented their own strategies for getting to the same end-point instead.

I'm not trying to go too far off-topic here...I was just making the point that the importance of keeping in with the World Bank is something that the developed nations constantly bill as all-important, whereas the reality would seem to indicate that for the nations in question, it is not necessarily a good thing.

This is why I said I wouldn't attach too much weight to the fact (which I agree with) that Putin's actions may put the WB-approved (generally a euphemism for WB-mandated) reforms in jeopardy.

Further, China also placed control regs that no one, would take advantage of the economic sitation.

...

The problems for Russia were not the reforms themselves, but the misallocations of those reforms

Working from memory, I have a feeling that Stiglitz discussed this very issue pointing out that it was the World Bank who insisted on the structure and timetable of reforms in Russia which permitted these abuses, and that the Chinese refusal to consider such a structure was one major reason why they didn't get into bed with the World Bank. I could be completely off on that, though.

At the end of the day, all I was trying to say is that I don't see jeopardising the relationship with the World Bank as necessarily a bad thing. Jeopardising economic reform altogether is a completely seperate story, and I'm sure that there's much evidence that Putin's actions do just that....but that wasn't the point being raised and no-one has really made that argument yet.

And what with me being such a pedant and all.....

Anyway....

Back to Putin and the topic at hand....

The key would be if the people of Russia now fear Putin as another Soviet style Yeltsin or would they trust Putin is leading the country back into its glory days.

Not being smart, but did Russia / USSR ever have "glory days"?

I don't think the problem is the public opinion of Putin in Russia right now.

I would be more inclined to say that the problem is figuring out whether Putin is a hard-hitting, advantage taking guy who is out for himself, or a hard-hitting, advantage-taking guy who is out for both himself and his nation.

In that respect, I still would say that its too early to judge this latest action.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from bonkey
Not being smart, but did Russia / USSR ever have "glory days"?

Come now Bonkey, the USSR was a terrifying achievement from a country left with the legacy of Peter the Great's serfdom. Regardless of what the rest of us think, the industrialisation of Russia, the smashing of the wehrmacht and the nuclear bomb to rival the american imperialists was something which many Russians were proud of and still are, regardless of the atrocities of Stalin.

Quoted from Bonkey
I would be more inclined to say that the problem is figuring out whether Putin is a hard-hitting, advantage taking guy who is out for himself, or a hard-hitting, advantage-taking guy who is out for both himself and his nation.

In that respect, I still would say that its too early to judge this latest action

Anyway, back on topic. It really depends on what you mean by out for his nation; the right wing (of which Putin is a member) in Russia advocate the return to the glory days of Soviet international power - the lesser hegemony as it were; THAT is what they consider to be the good of the nation - an unchallenged leadership with the power to arbitrarily change the faults as they see it of Russian society.

Putin is like all demagogues; work, bread etc etc - but he cannot deliver to the mass of Russians who are not educated in modern capitalism; the one thing he MIGHT be able to deliver on is a larger economy (and higher GNP) which will be two tier; the mass of uneducated labourers and the technocrats who can work the system and will rise to the top of the liberal capitalist régime and all the while the welfare state of Russia crumbles to nothing.

This new revenue it is claimed would be used to rejuvenate the Russian armed forces with a view to a reincorporation of the Ukraine and Belarus in some sort of quasi-federal superstate.

Reading Gregory Fisk's Russia (especially the Chapter on Putin) is enlightening about the political right in Russia from Kryuchkov on.

Victor

I don't know who (it was a Russian) said it but it was something along the lines of "Russians always need someone to tell them what to do".

And while Yeltsin, certainly in the early days was a popular democratic figure, popular democratic figures don't always get things done (/me looks at the populist democratic Ahern).

Russia does need strong leadership and while that leadership may sometimes act inappropriately (I wonder who really did restart the Chechen War), I think it is for the greater good.

Éomer of Rohan

I remember Tolstoy echoing your first sentiment Victor.

I also know why you feel a strong leader might actually be able to cut through the red tape and get things down - but the fact is once that starts, where does it stop with such an unprincipled character?

Putin is not an ancient Greek tyrannos who know the rules; that they perform a beneficial service and then leave when the people grow restless to be filled by a new tyrannos - I believe he will become a dictator in the mould of Hitler or Stalin, determined to reign supreme at all costs.

Geromino

Not being smart, but did Russia / USSR ever have "glory days"?

I don't think the problem is the public opinion of Putin in Russia right now.

I would be more inclined to say that the problem is figuring out whether Putin is a hard-hitting, advantage taking guy who is out for himself, or a hard-hitting, advantage-taking guy who is out for both himself and his nation.

In that respect, I still would say that its too early to judge this latest action.

jc [/B]

Contrary to what Eomer has stated, Russia has had glory days. First though, you must put yourself in Russian shoes and ignore the political systems that you may agree or disagree with. Under Peter the Great and Catherine, Russia built a powerful navy under the guidance of John Paul Jones, hero of the American Navy in Revolutionary War. In fact, his statue still stands in St Petersburg, home of the Russian Navy. You also had the Crimea War in which the Russian military help defeat, with the help of the Turks, the Biitish forces. It also built the trans-Siberian railway, a feat of great accomplishment, givent the terrain hostility of Siberia.

Contrary also to what Eomer stated, Russia has never had any great industrialization. Even under the NEP which Lenin started and Stalin stopped, Russian productivity was at best mediocre. Their was only two great accomplishments by Russian military: the T-34 and the Il-2 Stronmy. Most other innovations were either bought or stolen.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Geromino
Contrary to what Eomer has stated, Russia has had glory days

You need glasses old boy.

Quoted from Geromino
Contrary also to what Eomer stated, Russia has never had any great industrialization. Even under the NEP which Lenin started and Stalin stopped, Russian productivity was at best mediocre. Their was only two great accomplishments by Russian military: the T-34 and the Il-2 Stronmy. Most other innovations were either bought or stolen

I don't even know where to START with that...

Geromino

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I don't even know where to START with that...

Oh really, I suppose the Communist system was a model of economic efficiency. Even Paul Krugman would not agree with that little assessment. I do not even know where to begin with such a basic miscalculation of economic drab.

And as I have stated to Bonkey, you have to put yourself in Russian mindset, not your own.