Originally Posted by Justin '77

Why do you say that? That's exactly what Bush is doing.

Neither Bush nor the rest of the US foreign policy establishment thought it was. We didn't like a Soviet military presence in Cuba but we didn't stop it; it was when they shipped in missiles that we screamed. But if Russia is going to treat this in such a manner...

I find infinitely more disturbing the idea that the US is now placing bases in European countries whose populations don't want said bases. It's one thing to do that in some Third World country run by a dictator; I don't mind bullying dictators at all. It's quite another to do that to a fellow Republic and member in good standing of the Free World. Unless we are abandoning our Republican principles, that is....

I confess I find it increasingly hard to think of the Bushites as "Republicans". I may start calling it the Imperial Party, at least until the rank and file regain control of policy.

I dug up this gem by another poster describing three russian generations spanning in birth dates from 1850's to 1890's roughly. The description of the The Revolutionary Generation strikes to me as very Idealist.


1."The Cherry Orchard" Generation:
In the recent few years, I was a fan of the writer Anton Chekhov(1860-1904), and I especially admired his last work called "The Cherry Orchard" (1903). In that play, the main heroine is an elderly noble lady, who was young during the peak of Russian autocracy, but now sees her estate and orchard put on an auction and sold to a younger tycoon. That lady was very kind, helpful, but she carelessly spent much money helping the poor, and eventually, she landed into debt and forced to sell her possessions. However, cutting down the orchard would have brought her financial profit and perhaps saved her, but she admired the orchard's beauty so much that she refused. Also, that lady was so out of touch with the reality, that she at first did not choose to believe that she was in financial troubles. Her brother had a very similiar personality, but he also had large faults, which included arrogance and disrespect for the rising middle class.

I don't like judging and coming to the conclusion that all Russian of that age group were like Ranevskaya and Gayev. For example, the prime minister Peter Stolypin (1862-1911), staged very successful reforms that strengthened Russian agriculture in early 1900's. He was also quite a tough guy. However, that generation did not have what it took to prevent the bloodshed of the Revolutions of 1917. It seemed as if they thought that the autocracy would always triumph over socialism and democracy, even when workers' and peasants' riots were apparent. That generation was taught that monarchy was the best and only order in Russia, but they never strongly advocated it. They looked at the West and its industrialization with envy, and laughed at the backward ways of Russia(but of course, did so in private). THey knew that monarchy had to be raplaced, but they thought that reform, not revolution would suffice. Some of their members included early socialists such as Bakunin and Plekhanov, Prince Lvov, Cadet Milyukov(I don't know their dates), Russia's Prime Ministers Stolypin and Kerensky (1867-1965), and tsar Nicholas II (1868-1918)[/b][/u]

2).The Revolutionary Generation:
THis generation includes many revolutionary lears of many different streams and kinds: Socail Revolutionaries, Social Democrats (in 1902, split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks), Democratic Cadets, and many other socialist factions, which gathered underground, plotting change through revolution. In 1860's, tsar Alexander II freed the serfs, but this generation was born after that, not knowing what it was like to live under serfdom. In late 1880's, some youths began to appear as nihilists, denying logic and reason. In 1890's, many young, but smart men, began to publish underground literature, full of calls for arms.Soon, secret societies sprang up in all cities of Russia, but that culture of protest spread out and by turn of the century, the underground group had a great influence on Russia. In 1905, these young men fought in the Russo-Japanese war, which Russia lost and which gave the nation mch humiliation. Also in 1905, the revolutionary underground burst in revolts after the Bloody Sunday. During WWI, this generation led the Russina armies as officers in the tsar's army. Except for Rasputin, this generation had no influence on politics before the Revolution. Grigori Rasputin(1871-1916) was a monk(who was very sexual and promiscuous), who claimed that he possessed holy powers and could cure the tsar's son. In reality, all he wanted was control over the royal family. Then, the Revolution began, and this generation led the workers and peasants to fight. V. I. Lenin(1870-1924) seems to be the first cohort of the Revolutionary Generation. All Social Dems older than him became Mensheviks, for only few socialist reforms, and his junios in the party formed Bolsheviks, because they were for total changes. Lenin is very rational as a philosopher(unlike most Prophets), and very experimental and adaptive as a politician. At first, he turned to the harsh war communism, then he yielded to NEP, almost capitalistic policy. After his death, socialist factions began to compete for power, and by early 1930's, Joseph stalin (1879-1953) emerged as an absolute leader. He defeated Kamenev(1883-1937), Zinovyev (1881-1937), Trotsky(1880-1940), and others. He did not yield at all to capitalism, and instead destroyed all the wealthy landowning class. In mid 1930's, he killed many thousands of innocent people, whom he viewed as enemies of the state and blamed it on his collegues. It was he, who in 1930's introduced labor and concentration camps in USSR. By 1941, he purged most of the Soviet Army, making it uprepared to fight off the nazi invasion. However, during WWII, stalin was a very galvanizing leader, calling soldiers to fight to the last. After WWII, stalin attempted more purges, but they never became so drastic as in 1930's. BY his death in 1953, the Revolutionary Generation was replaced in power by the Old Guard Generation.

3). The Old Guard Generation:
THis generation first surfaced into spotlight during WWI, as soldiers in the Imperial Army. In 1914, the tsar's army was very poorly equipped, mostly all cavalry based, and was so low on guns that soldiers went to battlefield without rifles. Many soldiers deserted from the battlefields and there were many mutinies. Workers at the home front were very unproductive and faced horrible working conditions. Thus, it was not surprising that in February and then in October of 1917, workers rioted throughout the nation. In 1921, these same soldiers that fired at the Winter Palace in 1917, rioted in Krostadt against Lenin's war communism. During 1920's, the few rich men from that age group enjoyed NEP. More on them later.

I wonder how long the current set up in Russia will last. Some have described Putin's managed democracy as an outcome of the lawless 90s. But if you look at it, the lawless 90s had a more free press and, at least, oligarchs that were loyal to themselves rather than loyal to one man. Now you have oligarchs -- still criminal -- loyal to one man, like Roman Abramovich, and the oligarchs that are not loyal -- Khodorkovsky -- are in jail or in exile.

But is that really sustainable? If economic times go sour, and yes, they sometimes have a habit of doing that, even in Russia, how does an empowered Russian middle class seek redress from the government. The social contract now seems to be, "Putin and United Russia know what's good for you, see the new shopping mall, told you so."

But would United Russia really abandon or share power with a legitimate democratic challenge? And is the part of the Western business class that insists that 'everything is fine' in Russia deluding itself, or just acknowledging that it is there to get rich quickly and then get out at some point?

Who are the main beneficiaries in Russia's corporate democracy, and what will it take to fire the CEO if he's doing a shite job? How will that happen, and how will they resist a potential challenge in the future? That's what I want to know.

Hey #77. Do you think that Ivanov (the old Soviet blowhard) and Medvedev (the bloodthirsty capitalist) are just appetizers for the main course, Alexey Miller?

I mean he's got a great smile, he loves money, a Western sounding last name. Could be a big hit in Moscow. And he could still keep his day job at Gazprom. In fact, they could merge Gazprom and Kremlin into, Gazlin, or Kremprom.

What's the word on the street?

Originally Posted by Uzi

Hey #77. Do you think that Ivanov (the old Soviet blowhard) and Medvedev (the bloodthirsty capitalist) are just appetizers for the main course, Alexey Miller?

I mean he's got a great smile, he loves money, a Western sounding last name. Could be a big hit in Moscow. And he could still keep his day job at Gazprom. In fact, they could merge Gazprom and Kremlin into, Gazlin, or Kremprom.

What's the word on the street?

These days, the yablochniye (oops; forgot, there is no such thing anymore) are talking about Putin's recent comments on the question regarding non-consecutive terms.

For those who missed it, the Russian constitution forbids someone from serving as president for more than two consecutive four-year terms. A reporter asked Vladimir Vladimirovich about that and was basically answered that, "I'm still pretty young...". The clear (if you're into that whole thing) implication being that he does intend to make a comeback after a placeholder has come into play for a while.

Of course, there's no lower limit on how long the placeholder must serve for his term to count; and there's no "vice president" position. So the real hard-core invisible-partyites are figuring on a two-week holiday while one or the other guy keeps the chair warm, then he steps down for 'health reasons'; a new election is called, and Putin gets to win a second set of two terms.

That's the word on the street these days. Everyone takes pretty seriously Putin's more-or-less pledge not to screw with the Constitution. Fortunately for him, the Constitution (like most law) is written such that you could drive a fairly sizeable train through any one of its lesser loopholes.

As for Miller, three points:
- The western name would go over here as well as a President Hayamizu or Truong would in the US. Especially an American name (not just western, you see...).
- Russia has learned at least enough from the US to understand that corporatism is much more palatable when it is less overtly obvious. You'll never see a re-branding to Congress, Brown, and Root or Federaliburton; it just wouldn't sell. Americans may be the undisputed world masters of propaganda, but the Russian government are at least good students.
- The real danger to the power structure would be the fact that Miller, as a player in his own right, would bring with him his own support structure -- potentially independent of the existing regime's. No one is going to be elevated who actually threatens the shake up the system (hey! another parallel!). Could Miller be counted on to remember his place? Not nearly so well as Medvedev.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

These days, the yablochniye (oops; forgot, there is no such thing anymore) are talking about Putin's recent comments on the question regarding non-consecutive terms.

For those who missed it, the Russian constitution forbids someone from serving as president for more than two consecutive four-year terms. A reporter asked Vladimir Vladimirovich about that and was basically answered that, "I'm still pretty young...". The clear (if you're into that whole thing) implication being that he does intend to make a comeback after a placeholder has come into play for a while.

Of course, there's no lower limit on how long the placeholder must serve for his term to count; and there's no "vice president" position. So the real hard-core invisible-partyites are figuring on a two-week holiday while one or the other guy keeps the chair warm, then he steps down for 'health reasons'; a new election is called, and Putin gets to win a second set of two terms.

That's the word on the street these days. Everyone takes pretty seriously Putin's more-or-less pledge not to screw with the Constitution. Fortunately for him, the Constitution (like most law) is written such that you could drive a fairly sizeable train through any one of its lesser loopholes.

As for Miller, three points:
- The western name would go over here as well as a President Hayamizu or Truong would in the US. Especially an American name (not just western, you see...).
- Russia has learned at least enough from the US to understand that corporatism is much more palatable when it is less overtly obvious. You'll never see a re-branding to Congress, Brown, and Root or Federaliburton; it just wouldn't sell. Americans may be the undisputed world masters of propaganda, but the Russian government are at least good students.
- The real danger to the power structure would be the fact that Miller, as a player in his own right, would bring with him his own support structure -- potentially independent of the existing regime's. No one is going to be elevated who actually threatens the shake up the system (hey! another parallel!). Could Miller be counted on to remember his place? Not nearly so well as Medvedev.

Ugh. This reminds me of Tallinn city politics. Edgar Savisaar left the mayorship the year before the national election campaign and in his place was put 28-year-old Jüri Ratas who insisted he was his own man, until Savisaar lost the national election, Ratas promptly stepped down, and Savisaar took back his old seat as mayor of Tallinn.

Ratas (whose name means 'wheel') is known on the street as "abiratas" which means 'training wheel', or as the older folks call him poiss linnapea -- the 'boy mayor.'

It sounds like Medvedev might become the boy prime minister.

I also thought of another reason Miller would be no good. He celebrates Hannukah, which separates him from the vast majority of Russians, who celebrate Victory Day.

Originally Posted by Uzi

I also thought of another reason Miller would be no good. He celebrates Hannukah, which separates him from the vast majority of Russians, who celebrate Victory Day.

I'm fairly sure jews here celebrate Victory Day, too -- it is victory over the nazis, after all...

But the big holiday is one everyone gets behind -- Noviy God (New Year). No other one even comes close to that one for sheer energy and enthusiasm.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Yeah. Just those ten ABMs that they are going to just put in a cabinet somewhere (or maybe rent out a room for them in a local hotel) so they don't cause a traffic hazard.

Get serious. The '10 rockets' line is a load of pure crap, and really not the biggest problem. Of course once the first rockets are in place -- with the massive support system and security infrastructure that will need to accompany them -- the US has effectively established an offensive military missile base right on Russia's doorstep. Literally more than 90% of the population of Russia (that is, the ones who live on this side of the Urals) would fall under the shadow of that base.
And given the recent belligerent turn in America's tone over the past couple years (maybe someone in the Kremlin had read T4T and has some idea of what's coming from the US in the next decade) a Russian leader would be criminally negligent not to add that base to his list of 'places to take out in the event of war'.

It's a big part of the reason why the Azeri base is preferable to the Russians, as well as why it will never be accepted by the powers-that-be in the USA.

I must admit - putting a missile-defense shield designed to protect the West from Iran in a country with such strong religious, ethnic, cultural and linguistic ties to Iran makes a great deal of sense (obvious sarcasm)!

How about Armenia instead?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I'm fairly sure jews here celebrate Victory Day, too -- it is victory over the nazis, after all...

But the big holiday is one everyone gets behind -- Noviy God (New Year). No other one even comes close to that one for sheer energy and enthusiasm.

A friend of mine who was ex-Soviet military (no doubt guarding vital borders in Turkmenistan in the early 1970s), informed me that Russia is still not ready for a Jewish president.

He said that back in the day Kissinger was the guy they thought about killing as they slept at night with their AKs, as opposed to Nixon.

I think we in the US are the same. We are ready for a woman president, a black president, but President Bloomberg? Maybe if he chooses a Mormon for his running mate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811

Those crazy Russians.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811

Those crazy Russians.

Pretty funny. You know, though, there was a perfectly good article from a non-tabloid that you could have linked to. The Guardian, though itself flawed at times to be sure, is a much better source for news about things not involving the two-headed half-alien step-children of celebrity marriages.

You can stick with the Daily Mail anyway, if that's the kind of thing that floats your boat. It'd be worth pointing out, as a tangential point, that the caption under the last photo in the Mail article, "The Russian Bear moves in on the polar bears at the North Pole" is wrong on two counts. First, Polar bears don't live on the North Pole, but right around the land/ice regions of the polar continents (including Russia, where they have long been listed in the "Red Book" of protected species and are the integral part of the crests of several northern oblasts). And secondly, eve the Mail's map shows that this newest claim pushes up to near the Pole, but doesn't include it.

Yet another reason to get your news from more serious sources.

As for the claim itself? I'm not a big fan of territorial claims by governments anyway. So I view it mostly with anticipation of the amusing antics that will result. For now, even the serious Russian press seems to be giving the claim at least the benefit of the doubt -- and pointing out that the question has been handed over to a UN organ to confirm.

Actually, from my perspective, I would like nothing more than to see Murmansk developed as the main Russian export terminal, rather than anything on the Black or Baltic Seas.

The *reason* they prefer pipelines like Nord Stream or Blue Stream is that they can sell to sycophantic European politicians (like former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder), and *not* export to the arch enemies -- the United States and Britain, whose money they love, so long as they alone spend it.

As some one that lives on the Baltic Sea, I do *not* want to see it clogged with oil and gas transit. Those of us that actually live here -- the Swedes, Finns, Estonians, etc. know that Baltic Sea energy routes mean 1) increased Russian military presence to "safeguard" transit; 2) untransparent decision making; 3) non-market actors (like Gazprom, a state-owned company) picking off regular market actors (local energy companies).

For us, who controls our energy is very important. As you can guess, nobody likes President Putin, nor trusts him. All they have to do is print a photo of his smug face in a stupid hat (with totalitarianesque emblem) and you have people running to the toilet to vomit. I think he knows this and likes this because if you can't be liked, you might as well be feared. That's the essence of Russian insecurity.

Anyway, if the brains in the empire prevail though they'll export through Murmansk and keep their untransparent, potentially environmentally devastating business out of our neighborhood to a greater extent.

Originally Posted by Uzi

Actually, from my perspective, I would like nothing more than to see Murmansk developed as the main Russian export terminal, rather than anything on the Black or Baltic Seas.

It's funny. Over the summer months things actually sort of tend in that direction. What with the woeful mismanagement of the only Russian warm-water Atlantic port of any consequence (that's us), a fairly massive amount of traffic has been -- this past summer in particular -- routed north around the drunken Finns and their fellow Scandinaves to come in through Murmansk. That's a route that only works as long as the ice can be held off, which leaves only a little bit more than half the year open.

Either way is fine by me. All the freight traffic even from Murmansk/Arkhangelsk will pass right through Peter anyway. And the boom at the Murmansk ports has fed right into our bottom line, being as how the road haulers up there were (still are) totally unprepared to handle those kind of volumes.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Pretty funny. You know, though, there was a perfectly good article from a non-tabloid that you could have linked to. The Guardian, though itself flawed at times to be sure, is a much better source for news about things not involving the two-headed half-alien step-children of celebrity marriages.

This thread is called "Crazy Russia," right? I'll stick to my tabloids.

OK. Next time.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Either way is fine by me. All the freight traffic even from Murmansk/Arkhangelsk will pass right through Peter anyway. And the boom at the Murmansk ports has fed right into our bottom line, being as how the road haulers up there were (still are) totally unprepared to handle those kind of volumes.

All traffic through the Baltic Sea has to squeeze out past Denmark. Plus, how long would a spill take to clean up? The Arctic Ocean could at least take a good chunk of that volume, while making your firm wealthy in return.

Originally Posted by Uzi

All traffic through the Baltic Sea has to squeeze out past Denmark. Plus, how long would a spill take to clean up? The Arctic Ocean could at least take a good chunk of that volume, while making your firm wealthy in return.

We're on the road to riches either way. Peter, Kronshtadt, Hamina, Kotka, Murmansk, Arkhangelsk.. All traffic from any of them to Moscow and points further goes right past us. You really couldn't find a more natural hub for the Russian trucking industry. In fact, if they ever get things moving again on the Estonia border, we'll be seeing that traffic, too.

Good times...

But the Arctic is only passable -- even with icebreakers -- for part of the year. The rest of the time, the Baltic is Russia's only doorway to the Atlantic.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

But the Arctic is only passable -- even with icebreakers -- for part of the year. The rest of the time, the Baltic is Russia's only doorway to the Atlantic.

Some of us who post regularly on this forum believe that this problem will be ending soon -- in other words, the Arctic will be passable for increasingly long portions of the year.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

We're on the road to riches either way. Peter, Kronshtadt, Hamina, Kotka, Murmansk, Arkhangelsk.. All traffic from any of them to Moscow and points further goes right past us. You really couldn't find a more natural hub for the Russian trucking industry. In fact, if they ever get things moving again on the Estonia border, we'll be seeing that traffic, too.

Good times...

But the Arctic is only passable -- even with icebreakers -- for part of the year. The rest of the time, the Baltic is Russia's only doorway to the Atlantic.

Um ... Kaliningrad?

Originally Posted by Uzi

Um ... Kaliningrad?

Um. Not connected to Russia? It'd be like calling Oahu a good Pacific freight access for the USA.

Traffic inland from Kaliningrad ports has to pass through two international borders. It's nominally part of Russia, but it's as much Atlantic freight access as is Tallinn or Kotka -- and in fact, even less feasible. The Finns and the Estonians are, all things considered, fairly stable, reliable business partners; Byelorus, on the other hand...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Um. Not connected to Russia? It'd be like calling Oahu a good Pacific freight access for the USA.

Traffic inland from Kaliningrad ports has to pass through two international borders. It's nominally part of Russia, but it's as much Atlantic freight access as is Tallinn or Kotka -- and in fact, even less feasible. The Finns and the Estonians are, all things considered, fairly stable, reliable business partners; Byelorus, on the other hand...

Thanks for bringing up Kotka. I believe I was wasted there, as I was in every city I visited in Suomi.

Originally Posted by Uzi

Thanks for bringing up Kotka. I believe I was wasted there, as I was in every city I visited in Suomi.

Helps you fit in better with the natives.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Helps you fit in better with the natives.

There's actually a bar down the street from our home called the "Kotka Kelder" (Kotka Cellar). I guess it caters to the local Finnish alcoholics.

I am not sure if they'll follow through, but it would help the Brits to show some balls here and expel those f*ckers from London.

As much as they complain about 'Western influence', the Russians are meddlers, especially in places like London. This time though the polonium poisoning made a lot more people sick than Litvinenko.

I am glad I wasn't at that restaurant, but if I was, I would expect my ministers to take it up a notch over this on the diplomacy front. The alternative would send a clear signal: it's ok for connected Russian citizens to murder British citizens and poison people on British soil.

Originally Posted by Uzi

I am not sure if they'll follow through, but it would help the Brits to show some balls here and expel those f*ckers from London.

As much as they complain about 'Western influence', the Russians are meddlers, especially in places like London. This time though the polonium poisoning made a lot more people sick than Litvinenko.

I am glad I wasn't at that restaurant, but if I was, I would expect my ministers to take it up a notch over this on the diplomacy front. The alternative would send a clear signal: it's ok for connected Russian citizens to murder British citizens and poison people on British soil.

So why are they keeping Berezovsky? If they were trying to be reasonable about it, that is. I understand Paraguay is taking pretty much everyone these days...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

So why are they keeping Berezovsky? If they were trying to be reasonable about it, that is. I understand Paraguay is taking pretty much everyone these days...

Why do you need to change the subject? And who ever said the British were rational and correct? I just want to see some Russian spooks get tossed out of London. I find it entertaining, especially since the Russians warned the Brits not to do it and, I guess, anything about the murder. I want to be entertained. Give me some expulsions. And I want to see Gordon Brown sneer. I mean Putin called the extradition request 'stupid'. We might as well get a good Gordon Brown sneer out of this mess. Litvinenko's killer? Well he's just a faceless Slav in a sea of ex-KGB agents. Maybe he also killed Anna Politkovskaja. You might as well arrest Mihhail Baryshnikov. Or no one at all. I mean these people weren't that important, so who cares right?