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

One Cold War Was Enough: Russia Needs Our Help, Not Our Condemnation

oligarch

Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
160
BY Charles Ganske

Trying to understand Russia through the prism of the British and American news media these days can be a real headache. On one hand, if you read the business pages of the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times lately, you will learn that Russia is now one of the world's leading emerging markets, and the Russian economy has grown at an average annual rate of 7 percent since 2000. On the other hand, if you turn to the international headlines or the editorial pages, you will read that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been busy crushing democracy and reviving the Soviet Union.

While Americans are constantly having their eyes opened to the possibilities for growth and economic freedom in the People's Republic of China, a far more free and open society in Russia is judged more harshly in the Western news media. Why is this? Is it because the shelves at Wal-Marts across America are not stocked with goods from Russia? Or is it simply because, as some cynical Russians imply, there is one American and European expectation for people who "look like us," and another for others (Asians, Africans, and Arabs) who don't? Or could it be that American perceptions of Russia are still formed by a combination of stereotypes left over from the Cold War and more recent images of Russia in the nineties as the Wild East -- an exotic backwater whose main exports were supposedly mail order brides and ruthless mafias?

Russia, we are told by the advocates of a new Cold War, is helping Iran build a nuclear bomb. In reality, Russian technicians have helped Iran to build a nuclear power plant that would use civilian-grade uranium, but the Russians have repeatedly halted their work at the Bushehr site on the Persian Gulf due to Teheran's unpaid debts. The Iranian regime has responded to these setbacks by accusing Moscow of giving in to American pressure for taking these actions.

Earlier this year, President Putin offered President Bush the use of bases in Azerbaijan and southern Russia that could host a joint missile defense system to counter the threat of Iranian missiles targeted at Europe. Yet the Bush Administration continues to insist that placing ground-based interceptors 2,000 miles away from Iran in Poland and the Czech Republic makes sense, even when alternative sites are available much closer to Iran's borders. And while many members of the Bush Administration probably don't trust the crafty ex-KGB agent Putin to follow through on his pledge, perhaps they should remember that it was their hero Ronald Reagan who first proposed sharing missile defense technology with the Russians in the 1980s.

Many of the same conservative commentators and think tanks in Washington that cheered the collapse of the Soviet Union have essentially remained on autopilot when it comes to Russia since 1989, always looking for signs of a return to the good old Evil Empire days rather than honestly accepting change. For their part, many liberal Democrats seem to view the 1990s, when President Clinton and Boris Yeltsin developed a real friendship, as a golden age of democracy in Russia, rather than the low, dishonest decade of hyperinflation and chaos that most Russians remember.

It hasn't helped that millions of dollars from the jailed Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky have been paid out to PR agencies in Washington and London, creating a small but vocal anti-Russia lobby on both sides of the Atlantic. For his part, Khodorkovsky has been transformed from the Russian version of Ken Lay into a political dissident. The same exiled-oligarch-funded PR machine has also insisted that Alexander Litvinenko, a former Federal Security Service officer who died from radiation poisoning last year in London, must have been murdered by the Kremlin, rather than by the numerous personal enemies he had in Russia and abroad. The same people who warned us about "loose Russian nukes" during the 1990s apparently believe that terrorists or criminals could not possibly obtain a few hundred grams of polonium without state sponsorship.

In addition to arguing that every sensational killing in Russia and abroad is connected to the Kremlin, the New Cold Warriors also like to argue that Russia uses its enormous oil and gas reserves as a political weapon to bully former Soviet republics like Georgia, Belarus, and Lithuania. In reality, all of these countries have been forced to pay higher premiums for energy simply because the Russian natural gas monopoly, Gazprom, can no longer afford to subsidize Russia's neighbors with cheap gas. Countries that have traditionally enjoyed excellent relations with Moscow, like Armenia and Azerbaijan, have actually paid more for Russian gas this year than Ukraine, which has had a more strained relationship with Moscow in the last few years.

None of this is to say that Russia does not have real, severe problems that threaten its immature democracy and recent economic gains. In 2008, the Russian Federation is projected to lose 700,000 people, equivalent to the population of Austin, Texas. This means that while Russia enjoys a very high literacy rate, Russian companies often struggle to find enough talented managers to sustain their growth. And while Russia's major cities are growing, the countryside is losing people, due to high mortality rates and bleak prospects in rural areas. Russia imports some 40 percent of its meat and dairy products, and this has left ordinary Russians vulnerable to the recent run of inflation for basic consumer staples. Russia continues to suffer more abortions than live births every year, and the Russian army draft deprives many small towns and villages of their best young men.

What should America do to help address these real problems? The first step is to stop accepting the folly that a weakened Russia would somehow be in America's best interests. This is particularly important due to the rise of China next to Russia's unpopulated regions and the painful history of Islamic extremism and ethnic separatism in the Caucuses.

The second step is to stop obsessing about the Kremlin and start concentrating on promoting more trade, entrepreneurship, and genuine philanthropy between our two countries at the grassroots and corporate levels. If we can do this with China, a country that does not respect religious freedom and which actively censors the Internet, why can't we do it with Russia, whose government does not do either of these things?

As with so many other ventures, when it comes to Russia, the private sector in America remains miles ahead of the media and the political class when it comes to introducing real change. If some American politicians and pundits can find reasons for optimism even about war-torn Iraq, surely they can spare some for Russia.  :warstory:

- Charles Ganske is a former writer for Discovery Institute's Real Russia project in Seattle, Wash., where he served as the editor of Russia Blog. He currently lives in Fort Worth, Texas.
 
oligarch said:
BY Charles Ganske
...
While Americans are constantly having their eyes opened to the possibilities for growth and economic freedom in the People's Republic of China, a far more free and open society in Russia is judged more harshly in the Western news media. Why is this? Is it because the shelves at Wal-Marts across America are not stocked with goods from Russia? Or is it simply because, as some cynical Russians imply, there is one American and European expectation for people who "look like us," and another for others (Asians, Africans, and Arabs) who don't? Or could it be that American perceptions of Russia are still formed by a combination of stereotypes left over from the Cold War and more recent images of Russia in the nineties as the Wild East -- an exotic backwater whose main exports were supposedly mail order brides and ruthless mafias?
...
- Charles Ganske is a former writer for Discovery Institute's Real Russia project in Seattle, Wash., where he served as the editor of Russia Blog. He currently lives in Fort Worth, Texas.

One part of the rationale for favouring China and condemning Russia is that Russia is backsliding. It is becoming steadily less democratic, less law abiding and less inviting (for investment).

It is likely that our hopes for Russia, in the '90s, were overly optimistic and it is also likely that we are wilfully blind to some (many?) of China's failures but the fact remains that Russia is getting worse, by almost any sensible measure, and China is not.
 
oligarch said:
BY Charles Ganske

Trying to understand Russia through the prism of the British and American news media these days can be a real headache. On one hand, if you read the business pages of the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times lately, you will learn that Russia is now one of the world's leading emerging markets, and the Russian economy has grown at an average annual rate of 7 percent since 2000. On the other hand, if you turn to the international headlines or the editorial pages, you will read that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been busy crushing democracy and reviving the Soviet Union.

7% isn't unheard of in Russian history. During the 1950's and 60's average GDP growth was 5.9% and 5.1% respectively. During the 1920's with the new economic policy the Russian (then Soviet) economy was growing at 20%! That being said, this growth is being fueled by something quite different then the massive state expenditures aimed at modernizing what was then an essential medieval society and economy.

Russia has always been a very proud nation and to be relegated to middle power status while be governed by a drunken fool did not sit well with them. There is an increasing tendency to blame America and the west for all of the countries problems.

I suspect that Putin is hoping that the war in Iraq, the credit crisis, rising energy prices and the other host of problems that the US has currently, will cause the US to become more insular. I don't agree but it's not hard to see how Putin (Mr. ex-KGB Col. himself) would.

We live in interesting times and I for one hope that we don't see Cold War, round 2.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
One part of the rationale for favouring China and condemning Russia is that Russia is backsliding. It is becoming steadily less democratic, less law abiding and less inviting (for investment).

It is likely that our hopes for Russia, in the '90s, were overly optimistic and it is also likely that we are wilfully blind to some (many?) of China's failures but the fact remains that Russia is getting worse, by almost any sensible measure, and China is not.

China is becoming less democratic. Sensoring the internet is a fairly new measure which was brought in. Limiting the number of children is also quite an extreme measure I would say. I'd also like to disagree with the point that Russia is being less inviting for investment. Putin has been trying to increase foreign investment into the economy (aside from colonial treaties which were signed under Yeltsin), and he has been quite successful. Foreign investment has increased and net capital flight has reversed (in part due to the falling dollar; however, that argument cannot be sustained because the ECB refuses to lower rates and Russians can still safely stash $ in Euro). The draft in Russia has been lowered from 2, to 1.5, to 1 year, and there are rumours that it may be lowered again in a few years. Russia has negotiated visa-free arrangements with countries like Israel. Only three channels of HUNDEREDS are state owned (I have access to Russian television), and even those channels that are state controlled allow for critisizm and for political debate. There are some moderately critical channels available to all Russians such as RenTV, and some extremely critical (mostly available in Moscow and St. Petersburg) such as "RTVi Russia". Further, those channels that are state owned were owned by tycoons like Berezovsky, who I would argue are responsible for more Russian deaths that your average citizen of Russia. I'm not implying by any means that correlation implies causation, but the death of Paul Khlebnikov shortly after the release of his book "Berezeovsky: the Godfather of the Kremlin" is highly suspicious to me. I was a kid growing up in a rather poor city, in a poor neighboorhood of Russia in the 90s, and I came to Canada in 98. I remember how "wonderful" life was under Yeltsin. We didn't even have wide access to fruit and when my parents brought home things like oranges it made our day. Waiting for hours in line for bread wasn't fun either. Of course, I was young and it all seemed normal to me, as I have not seen anything else. It is only upon reflection now after years of living in Canada I realise how bad things were. If you visit Russia now, you will see that there are no such things as lineups for food. You can pretty much buy anything and cities like Moscow simply never sleep. It is a whole diffirent picture and this new picture is welcomed by many Russians. This is why Russians (ordinary Russians, not the power or the elite) are critical of the west. Their logic goes like this: "when our government hurt us, destroyed our savings, denied us nutrients, and destroyed our society the west was in love with our president. How, when we are growing rapidly and Russians are begining live in much better conditions, the west continually criticises our president. We are happier now, should that not be enough?

When it comes to economic growth, it is fairly difficult to assess such things under Stalin who pretty much whipped prisoners into building the economy. I doubt this is the economy you want to compare modern Russia to. Further, even though it is a widely ignored point, only 1/3rd of the growth is fueled by natural resourses and the current growth (unlike the case of a change in the economy during industrialization), is sustainable. Many like to argue that if oil prices fell, the Russians would no longer experience this growth; however, as mentioned above, only a third of the economy is resource based and Russia has established a stalization fund in order to protect itself from an oil price shock. Further, lets get real, oil prices are NOT going to fall. Not all Russian industry has even benefited from high oil prices. Defence contractors are a large player in the Russian economy. An increase in the price of oil is quite a cost for tank builders and MiG manufacturers (which is why the US is so devistated by the shock???). If demand for Russian arms proves to be at least somewhat price elastic then we could see the profits of these companies sink quite rapidly.

When we talk about backsliding on democracy, we can't simply criticise Russia as though it exists in a vacuum. Lets have a look at things like the Patriot Acts and simmilar Canadian legislation. While not making a moral judgement on the acts or stating that they are excessive or unnessary, there are few Russian measures that have been more extreme than these. While we may or may not argue in Canada and the US that these acts are nessesary, the Russians may just as easily argue that the measures they are implimenting are nessesary. I argue why these measure that Russia is criticised for are nessary, but it there really a reason to so?
 
E.R. Campbell said:
It is likely that our hopes for Russia, in the '90s, were overly optimistic and it is also likely that we are wilfully blind to some (many?) of China's failures but the fact remains that Russia is getting worse...

What do you mean by "Russia is getting worse"?
More difficult to deal with? Requires more respect?
No doubt, the West liked Russia's economic and political weakness of 90s.


 
oligarch said:
China is becoming less democratic.
Since when did China even pretend to be a democracy?  The last election held with anyone on the ballot other than a member of the Communist Party was held...when again?

Russia, on the other hand, certainly enjoys the benefits of "Managed Democracy":

Medvedev Won...

Some here may find this to be an interesting essay on the current state of affairs in Putin's Russia:  Putin - The Bottom Line.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
One part of the rationale for favouring China and condemning Russia is that Russia is backsliding. It is becoming steadily less democratic, less law abiding and less inviting (for investment).

It is likely that our hopes for Russia, in the '90s, were overly optimistic and it is also likely that we are wilfully blind to some (many?) of China's failures but the fact remains that Russia is getting worse, by almost any sensible measure, and China is not.

Tibet and Taiwan anyone?
 
Yes, nice, way to quote an essay by Boris Nemtsov, probably the most unsuccessful and lying politician who was in parliament during the good old cherished by the west Boris Yeltsin times, associated with chaos, inflation, crime, and unemployment. You may find it curous that it was Boris Nemtsov who stated back during his failed career in the SPS that the country needs "a strong leader", one that would resemble a "Czar", who now opposes the exact thing he said just a few years ago. Of course, back then he was promoting the "czardom" of the man who put him in power. I guess so long as BP consortiums are let in with colonial treaties, the west will proclaim the country to be 'democratic'; otherwise, it is undemocratic, and elections must be fixed, becuase any reasonable country will elect the guy favoured by the great British Empire, who has never colonised other lands and is the example of democracy the rest of the world should follow? I guess the Russians should elect the runner-up, the leader of the communist pary, Zuganov, he will do much better things for Russia than Medvedev, or maybe they should have voted for Zhirinosvky? I'm sure you will not propose either of these things, and probably introduce the great leader and democracy promoter Kasparov, who yells in English when arrested and fined a laughable sum words like "this is a dictatorship, they're detaining me and fining me $40", provokes police in illegal marches by going off the registered path, and speaks English better than he speaks Russian? Russia should elect the man who gets aid from foreign embassies and who studied in another country, like Kasparov. Yes, maybe they should just join the United States while they are at it. A man who has ties to people who openly propose the taking apart of Russia into several countries and annexing Siberia and the Caucauses. I'm sure all these people present a better alternative. You may also find it interesting the Nemtsov is all over political debate shows in Russia, while at the same time claiming that there is no freedom of speech. He is saying that there is NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON NATIONAL TELEVISION freely and openly, and nobody sensors him. This is exactly why Russians don't trust him.

Now on to the China issue. I guess your logic works great. Just because China does not claim to be democratic, we should align ourselves with them. We should do this while criticising Russia, a more free and open country. According to this logic, we should also become friends with North Korea. Hell, they don't claim to be a democracy either, JUST LIKE CHINA!! :) Further, using your logic, I fail to see why we are not criticising baltic states like Estonia, who deny voting rights to citizens who born in these counries, purely out of racial reasons. People of Russian decent may not vote in Estonia, yet freedom-house give it a perfect democratic rating. I don't know about you, but I smell and anti-Russian propoganda campaign.
 
Oligarch,

Do you mind a few questions?

- Please clarify your title: do you believe we have started a second cold war, and why?
- Again on the title, how specifically does Russia need our help, and what measures are you proposing?
- Regarding your text, I suggest you leave China out of your arguments for now.  Few people claim to know everything there is to know about Russia, but claiming to know everything about both China and Russia tends to strain anyone's credibility.

Finally,
- Your method of writing make you sound very confident of your opinions and a few facts, which is never a bad thing.  But do you have a specific advantage of knowledge that would lend your viewpoint more credibility?  I.e. do you work for the government?  Are you a member of DFAIT working with a Russian delegation?  Are you from Russia?  Please provide some context.

Looking forward to your comments...   

 
Hey Greymatters,

I hope to clarify my point of view, and of course I do not mind a few questions. The title is the title of the article I posted. I do believe that Russia is not responsible for the cold war rhetoric that is taking place right now, more on this later. I am from Russia, and I hold dual Canadian-Russian citizenship. Dual citizenship is allowed both according to Canadian and Russian legislation. I am also an economics and international relations student. I do not claim to know everything about China; in fact, I know very little, and it is mostly facts that are known by many Canadians anyway. However, it does not take an expert to know that China actively sensors the internet and has the death penalty, and that Russia does not do either of these things. I don’t think my arguments about China were extremely complex to the point that I would be “claiming to know everything about China” to be making them. However, I am fairly familiar with Russian politics and its economics, and I also believe that I have a fairly good understanding of Russia, what it is like to live in Russia, and of current public opinion in Russia. The situation in Russia today is by no means perfect, but a perfect situation in today’s geopolitical landscape is seen quite rarely. It is true that Russia is plagued by many internal problems, but these problems are exactly that – INTERNAL. These problems would include such things as corruption and extensive bureaucracy, population, as well as the army draft.

Having been observing both Russian and Western news, I sincerely believe that the “new cold war” rhetoric originally came from the west (not necessarily Canada). Canada, on the large, does not buy this line except when it comes to things like the artic. By the way, let me sidetrack a little bit. The north pole does not belong to neither Russia nor Canada, given today's international agreements it represents international "waters"(or ice... for now). Russia has the same moral and legal right to place its flag on the bottom of the arctic floor as the United States has a right to install its flag on the surface of the moon. I don’t believe anyone is starting “a new cold war”; however, I believe that the rhetoric is coming from the west, and certain special interests. After all, I'm sure whoever is chosen to build the missile base in northern Europe will make tons of money, such as Halliburton. The western ‘alliance’ is doing some things that Russia sees as aggressive, such as the new missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, which could easily be installed in Azerbaijan, while putting interceptor missile launchers either on Azeri land, Russia, or on the black sea. An Azeri radar will provide for much earlier detection, if the site is TRULY intended for Iran, and missile launchers can be placed practically anywhere. Another little discussed issue is that is talked about very little in western news, but widely discussed in Russia, is that the missile defence shield may arguably give the United States “first strike advantage” over Russia. In theory, if the US would attack Russia and take out the majority of its international ballistic missiles, the remaining ones that Russia would retaliate with would be easily shot down by such a missile shield. Further, the missile defence system, while defensive in nature today, may be transformed into an offensive system by future leaders. Further, where does the United States propose to be planning to shoot down missiles shot by Iran (which don't exist)? Over Russian land? Shooting down an intercontinental ballistic missile is not a trivial matter, and it may damage Russian cities and kill many people. It was the western NATO states which refuse to ratify CFE treaties and then claim Russia is being aggressive for imposing a moratorium. It was the United States also who withdrew from treaties limiting its prolifiration of nuclear weapons and are now allegedly developing "tactical nukes". By the way, if tactical nukes are to be used in Iran, where do you think the clouds will go? See the world map for ideas!

Anatole Kaletsky in his article tried to look at the West through Russian eyes as it is perceived in this country. “Despite all the past sentimental rhetoric of Western politicians describing Russia as a friend and “strategic partner”, US and European behavior has consistently treated Russia more as an enemy than an ally,” he points out. “Russia has been told it could never join NATO or the EU and Mr. Putin’s invitation to G8 summits is scant consolation for the denial of WTO membership and the continuation of US trade sanctions dating back to the Cold War.” Also, “why shouldn’t the Russians worry about Western armies and missiles on their borders, when these contribute to a process of territorial encroachment similar to what Napoleon and Hitler failed to achieve by cruder means?”
 
Thanks for clarifying your background and experience.  Although I cant say I agree with many of your viewpoints, at least its a different and interesting perspective...

 
No problem. If you have any concerns about Russia I'd be glad to address them the best I can from my point of view, or to clarify the point of view of the Russian "official" line if it needs to be done, which is rarely really explained in western news. Of course, Russia has its problems, I am not denying that, and I can agree and explain the problems I see plauging the country as well. The funny thing, I see the problems Russia faces to be much different than "freedom of speech" and "millitary posturing". Russia has an extensive millitary and as a sovereign state has the right to defend its borders and interests, just like the United States is doing, just like Canada is doing. It is understandable that the United States would prefer not to deal with Russia and not count its opinion, but a weak Russia is not in anyone's best interest. A stronger Russia will provide a balance of power and will be a source of stability in the world, and will provide a system of checks and balances on an international scale that the American constitution so cherishes internally. A stronger Russia will encourage less unilateral action and more dialogue, and cooperation will increase. One thing I see is room for a lot of cooperation between Russia and Canada in Afghanistan, given that we both have interests there (Canadian security concerns as well as the fact that afghani drugs often end up in Russia), and I see that we have started to begin cooperation in this area, with Russia allowing some limited transit for NATO to Afghanistan. One thing NATO states could do to obtain goodwill with Russia is ratify the CFE treaty, for example, and I'm sure you will see much more cooperation on the Russian side. Russians sincerely felt that the west welcomed them in 90s and now they feel betrayed, due to things such as NATO expansion and lack of CFE ratification. Lets make the Russians feel safe, and trust me, you will see reciprocity. :threat:
 
oligarch said:
... a weak Russia is not in anyone's best interest. A stronger Russia will provide a balance of power and will be a source of stability in the world, and will provide a system of checks and balances on an international scale that the American constitution so cherishes internally. A stronger Russia will encourage less unilateral action and more dialogue, and cooperation will increase.... 

Feel free to spout off about how great your country isnt and should be, but please dont group our country together with Russia or the USA.  Our methods of defending our sovereignty are not the same as either of those two countries...   

 
 
Greymatters said:
Feel free to spout off about how great your country isnt and should be, but please dont group our country together with Russia or the USA.  Our methods of defending our sovereignty are not the same as either of those two countries...   

I am a Russian Canadian, so I'm not sure which country you are referring to when you say "your" country. I'm not sure what you mean by your statement also, I wasn't implying about greatness of ANY country, but rather was promoting the concept of a balance of power. You know, in the US constitution there is balance of power between congress, exectuve, and the courts? Americans are rather proud of this achievement, as it was one of the main ideas of the "founding fathers". In Canada we have the same balance of power between parliament and the courts, but the legislature is somewhat merged with the executive. So that not all power is rested in one place! I was merely stating that such multipolarity, such a "balance of power" is also in the best interest of humanity on the international scale. That is the multipolarity I was referring to, and making the point that a unipolar world lead by ANY power, be it the US or Russia, is not the best thing for peace and security. It is this balance of power which kept both countries from destroying each other in the Cold War. Please don't turn purely exporatory opinion sharing into a battle of nationality, I did not at all mean to imply the greatness of any country.
 
he meant canadian
please read attachment...lol
                              regards,,,
                                  scoty b
 
Oligarch:  You were the one who stated China was becoming less democratic, I simply pointed out that China has never made any pretensions to being a democracy.  I also made no statement whatsover about what the state of our relations should be with them as it has absolutely no bearing on the topic at hand, how you jumped to that conclusion about what I wrote is beyond me.

You obviously have some strong feelings about the current state of Russia and the political actors on the stage and behind the throne.  While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, a true student of international diplomacy and current affairs is open to all viewpoints, no matter who the author is in order to form reasoned and informed opinions and arguments.  As has been stated on here time and again, attack the argument, not the writer if you want to have any credibility.  What you are spouting is right off the speaking notes of Nashi.  In light of this, I'd be very interested in reading your views on the analysis of voting patterns in the Presidential election.  Before you start I'll point out that the same trend was detected in the voting for the state Duma.  As the article is no longer openly available in English I won't post it here but if you're as knowledgeable about Russia as you profess to be, you'll be able to dig it up.  If you have a problem, send me a PM and I'll get it to you that way.

Finally, I find your choice of Oligarch as a name to be very intriguing given your viewpoints. Perhaps Siloviki would have been more fitting.
 
Oligarch was a name I used to play "age of empires I" with when I just came from Russia, and then it just stuck. Are you referring to the Nemstov essay? Sure, I'll have a look. I'm sure you will be surprised that I started off with an anti-Russian point of view when I began getting interested in Russian politics. I've just listen to so much of Nemtsov on Russian television and have heard so many contradiction in what he says over time and even within the last year, that I've simply grown to distrust him. He is an influential member of SPS (Union of Right Forces), whose post privatisation policies pretty much lead to the inflation and unemployment I previously spoke of, and the party which was responsible for the hasty and poorly organized privatization in the 90s. If you asked a second year economics student about how one should privatise the economy of the former USSR, if he gave the answer of the SPS (and Chubais), that student would have gotten an F, in my opinion. Anyone knows that hasty economic action is unpredictable and often results in economic crisis, and even work by Joeseph Stiglitz, a nobel prize winning economist and once chief economist of the world bank agrees with this assertion I am making. But I will review the work of Nemtsov and try to address the concerns one by one. Maybe he is trying to find irregularities because his party did not win a seat... in Russia there is a syndrome that all parties who felt they should have gotten more votes claim fraud. However, besides the OSCE, there were many international observes present during the elections and most of them had positive things to say. There is a small group who said there were violations, but this group, even though very vociferous, is quite small and not any more unusual than for elections in most countries. There were claims of irregularities even in the US elections, and people rarely doubt their "democratic" status.
 
I'm actually more interested in your take on the Moscow Times article about Sergei Shpilkin's analysis of the results released by the Central Election's Committee but if you have the time and inclination for both...

The OSCE hardly mounted a full fledged monitoring mission, sending only 22 Parliamentarians, the only "Western" observers there and they were some of the most vocal in criticising the process. One quote from their spokesman was pretty interesting, "...regional and local officials had compelled many public sector workers to vote for Medvedev or risk losing their jobs." (Russia election not free or fair, say observers) The OSCE/ODIHR boycotted not only the Presidential election but also the Duma elections as well.  Personally, I haven't seen any all that much outside of Russian news agencies quoting any observers saying very much positive, so if you have some links to that, I'd be interested in seeing them.

Yep, there have been issues in the past with US elections but, at the end of the day, the free and unfettered press (as much as I hate defending the MSM) brought them to light for public scrutiny and debate and changes were implemented to rectify the problems.  Can the same be said about Russia?
 
garb811 said:
I'm actually more interested in your take on the Moscow Times article about Sergei Shpilkin's analysis of the results released by the Central Election's Committee but if you have the time and inclination for both...

The OSCE hardly mounted a full fledged monitoring mission, sending only 22 Parliamentarians, the only "Western" observers there and they were some of the most vocal in criticising the process. One quote from their spokesman was pretty interesting, "...regional and local officials had compelled many public sector workers to vote for Medvedev or risk losing their jobs." (Russia election not free or fair, say observers) The OSCE/ODIHR boycotted not only the Presidential election but also the Duma elections as well.  Personally, I haven't seen any all that much outside of Russian news agencies quoting any observers saying very much positive, so if you have some links to that, I'd be interested in seeing them.

Yep, there have been issues in the past with US elections but, at the end of the day, the free and unfettered press (as much as I hate defending the MSM) brought them to light for public scrutiny and debate and changes were implemented to rectify the problems.  Can the same be said about Russia?

Well if you are talking about the presidential election you can't be talking about the OSCE, since they refused to monitor it. If you refuse to be present because you want Russia to allow more observes a year ahead of the election than you really don't have a right to speak. The OSCE was invited, they refused to come. I'm still waiting for the day that the United States or Canada invites international observers on election day. Besides, I'm sure you meant PEACE (Parliamental Assembly of the Council of Europe), not OSCE, since PEACE has sent a 22 member delegation.

http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Press/StopPressView.asp?ID=2013 : Notice how the majority of the criticism is not about "voting patterns" or about actual elections meddling, but about media access. "Nonetheless, the delegation felt that even if those concerns had been addressed, the outcome of the vote – amounting , in effect, to a vote of confidence in the incumbent President – would have been the same." However, a media access argument is easy to make. Personally, I observed the election on both Russian State and independent television, and I have seen Zhirinovsky and Zuganov on TV more than Medvedev. I have access to over 20 Russian channels through online Television, and only 3 of them are state owned. In cities like Moscow, people have access to hundereds of channels, including non-Russian TV, so to say that they have little access to info is, well, a lie. Even in siberian cities channels like RenTV would be available, which are opposition. Almost every day during the parliamentary election there was at least a few hours of debate, which is about the same as what happens in the case of Canada. Russia was sometimes criticised for the TIME OF DAY during which the debates were shown (saying that at 5pm most ppl are at work), but this argument to me is borderline ridiculous. Perhaps its a good argument for the TV station, but not to determine a democratic standing of the country.

Further, the SCO and the CIS has declared the Russian elections as fair. With the SCO, CIS, declaring the election fair, and PEACE criticising Russia on technicalities and minor glitches which exist in most countries, in the end declairing that even if such concerns were looked at the end result would have been the same, I can conclude that the onnly people who think that the Russian election is unfair is the OSCE(which wasn't present), and western media. Of course, for the media to sell the "new cold war" rhetoric about Putin "flexing his muscles" it pays. I even saw an article once that Putin going fishing and some paparazi taking a picture of the guy shirtless was a political message to the west, give me a break, the guy is fishing on the weekend!!

I wouldn't go as far as proclaiming American media to be perfect and unfettered (FOX? CNN? Yeah right!), as over the past few decades media holding companies decreased into the single digits.
 
Back
Top