Putin's Russia for its part is at least as bad as Bush's America on human rights, much worse on domestic freedoms and crony capitalism. As it is the EU is far too dependent on Russia for its energy, it is simply common sense to try to reduce that dependency and to limit the power of Gazprom. I really don't understand your thinking on this issue.
Perhaps because you're irrationally and irrevocably biased. When did Russia (not the USSR) invade and occupy another sovereign nation? Crony capitalism was foisted on Russia by western economists. Putin is putting an end to it, but gets constantly criticized for ending something that the west started. You complain about its existence AND you complain about Putin doing something about it.
It kind of sounds like you wrote this article in the May 8 edition of Newsweek called Partner or Bully?
Where did I say that it did? Torturing and murdering isn't any less of a crime when the victims are your own citizens.
Crony capitalism was foisted on Russia by western economists.
No, it wasn't. They just didn't care under the assumption that creating a 'market' was all important and that it didn't matter if the nomenklatura and those close to it stole property, because once they had it they would start acting like good law abiding capitalists. Obviously they were idiots, but indifference to massive corruption, while ugly, does not equal encouragement, just like I don't hold Putin's political allies in the West, Schoroeder, Berlusconi, and Chirac, or the business people who work with the various Russian companies responsible for the corruption that is going on today.
Putin is putting an end to it, but gets constantly criticized for ending something that the west started.
Putin is replacing one bunch of politically connected crooks with another - those tied to Yeltsin are out, unless they give a cut to the new kids on the block, and Putin's cronies are in. When a new mob boss comes in and replaces the old capos with his own bunch I don't call that a positive development, just more of the same.
Perhaps because you're irrationally and irrevocably biased.
It is true that Poles are somewhat wary of their big Eastern neighbour, much in the same way that Latin Americans are about the US, and for the same reason. That means that Russian leaders who express great pride in their old imperial ways, and who view the demise of their empire as a tragedy, don't get the benefit of the doubt. Call that irrational if you will. Personally I don't happen to see Latin Americans who are a tad suspicious of a Bush admin filled with unrepentant veterans from the old dirty Latin American Cold War years as crazy, but feel free to disagree.
Crony capitalism was foisted on Russia by western economists. No, it wasn't. They just didn't care under the assumption that creating a 'market' was all important and that it didn't matter if the nomenklatura and those close to it stole property, because once they had it they would start acting like good law abiding capitalists.
No, it wasn't. They just didn't care under the assumption that creating a 'market' was all important and that it didn't matter if the nomenklatura and those close to it stole property, because once they had it they would start acting like good law abiding capitalists.
Please do some research before repeating this tired old cliche. Please read this legal finding. From this article:
It was in 1992, after Congress passed the Freedom for Russia and the Emerging Eurasian Democracies and Open Market Support Act, that USAID hired Harvard to provide consultants to the Russian government to help design institutions favorable to democratic government and a market economy.
I cannot overestimate the level of access to Russian governmental decision makers these Harvard advisors had. They could literally have an audience with Yeltsin upon demand. They had permanent offices next to Yegor Gaidar, the "liberal" "economist" in charge of implementing their shock therapy prescription. They continually stressed to all levels of Russian government that they would pull the plug on funding if their decisions were not implemented without question and immediately.
Bill Clinton is guilty, in large part, for listening to his pathetic, so-called kremlinologists. To call his attention to Russia after the end of the cold war apathetic would be a complement.
This is just plain wrong. Yeltsin's crew was in it purely for the money. They didn't give a rat's ass about the country. They stole as much as they could, as fast as they could. Putin's appointees may also be a greedy bunch, but they are genuinely interested in improving the country. You cannot even compare the economic, political, and legal progress made under Putin to that of the Yeltsin years.
They stole as much as they could, as fast as they could. Putin's appointees may also be a greedy bunch, but they are genuinely interested in improving the country. You cannot even compare the economic, political, and legal progress made under Putin to that of the Yeltsin years.
You have not provided any kind of evidence that any improvement under Putin is due to anything other than massive amounts of money from commodity exports, something that Putin deserves little credit for, and something that even Yeltsin's crowd would have managed to use to some extent to the benefit of the population.
Never has more been stolen from Russia's population by so few people than in the past few years. It's just less visible when the loot is plentiful and crumbs can be distributed grandly. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
We've had this conversation many times, mon ami.
Do you really believe that Putin has done nothing for the country? Is your hatred of him so blinding?
To be honest, I don't like his personality or the way he crudely expresses himself, but I have to admit that he is probably one of the most intelligent heads of state in the world right now. Many journalists (yes, even French ones) have said that they are immensely impressed with his ability to conduct 3.5 and 4 hour-long press conferences (not bad for someone who is "anti-press"), while maintaing perfect composure and command of all relevant facts and figures. He demands the same from all of his ministers, as well.
The mere fact that they are so well-informed puts them head and shoulders above Yeltsin's crowd. The man Yeltsin appointed governor of Chuhotka couldn't even find it on a map until it was pointed out to him.
So, think what you like, at any given time 70% of the only people who matter -- Russian citizens -- think Putin is better than Yeltsin, who had approval ratings twice as low as W's current ones.
Never has more been stolen from Russia's population by so few people than in the past few years. It's just less visible when the loot is plentiful and crumbs can be distributed grandly.
There is more than a grain of truth in what you say. But, you don't seem to understand that under Yeltsin no crumbs were even allowed to fall of the table!
When did Russia (not the USSR) invade and occupy another sovereign nation?
Actually, it could be argued that at least Moldova (Transdniestria) and Georgia (Abkhazia, Northern Ossetia, and Adjuria) were invaded and occupied in the past 15 years... In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Defending your citizens' interests cannot be compared to, say, France's imperialist escapade into Algeria.
Where did I say that Russia invaded sovereign countries? Russia has spent most of its time defending itself from European invading powers. That's one of the reasons for its mistrust of huge European alliances like the EU.
I am the biggest pacificist you are likely to meet, which, by the way, got me into big trouble in the US military. But, hey, it was they who turned me into the pacifist.
Double wow.
So if my interpretation was wrong, how would you describe Russian "interventions" in the territories I mentioned? Was Russia invaded or attacked by Moldova or Georgia? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Techically every peacekeeping mission can be considered an occupation, however, in those cases territory of republics of Transdniestria, Abkhazia, Northern Ossetia is being controlled by local police and Russian peacekeepers only involved in points of contact between those republics and Georgia/Moldova.
Unfortunately, both Georgia and Moldova have little to offer to those republics at this point. Neither economically, with Moldova being the poorest country in Europe and Georgia being a failed state, nor politically - they just not prepared to give any meaningful state of autonomy.
