03 Dec 07
Originally posted by KorchYou are a naive close minded ***
You`re naive one. Dont you know that most of oligarchs supports Putin? Oligarchs who does not it are prisoned (Khodorokovsky) or escaped from Russia (Berezovsky).
Don't you know that the 'opposition' is funded by Khodorokovsky's cronies?
03 Dec 07
3 edits
Originally posted by zin23So what? Khodorokovsky, Berezovsky and maybe someone else are minority of oligarchs - other ones are supporting Putin. And we know what`s happened with Khodorokovsky.
You are a naive close minded ***
Don't you know that the 'opposition' is funded by Khodorokovsky's cronies?
P.S. Reprisal with opposition of few oligarchs allowed Putin make good PR for himself - he was able to proclaim himself as fighter against oligarchs. And we can see that many people (even out of Russia) have believed that.
03 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Korch(1) OK, so Putin's government uses economic sanctions and propaganda to try to influence other countries. Sometimes this may be unjustified and sometimes it may be just be the way the big boys play politics. Just like the United States. As for Russian military imperialism, I am certain that you are right: Putin is ultimately deterred by practical consequences. So are many other governments including the U.S.. Next issue.
(1) Agressive foriegn policy may express not only as military agression but also as economic sanctions and propoganda (in international level) against "enemy" states trying to incline other countries (and international organisations) against them. And Putin does not act like Hitler not because he is so peaceful but beause he knows about possible consequences main admonishments to Putin for Khodorkovsky was trial with obvious procedural violations.
(3) I am trying to make a practical point here about equal treatment in the Western mass media, not to defend Putin's bullies. Was the United States democratic when it enforced the Jim Crow laws against Blacks? When it arrested and beat-up the peace-niks? Have you ever read about the Democratic National Convention of 1968?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention#Protests_and_police_response
Yes, is is the 21st century. However, regarding repression of The Other Russia (which Kasparov associates himself with), do you think the United States would be tolerant if it faced an organized party whose dominant elements consisted of militants like Rodina, the National Bolshevik Party, and the Vanguard of Red Youth? If so, you don't understand American "democracy". Everybody says they are democratic until push comes to shove, and then it comes down to intimidation and violence and who has the best propaganda. The U.S. would place agents provocateurs and other infiltrators within the movements, the "peaceful demonstrations" would be targeted as terrorist organizations, and the police would violently repress them -- claiming that the militants started it. And do you know what the American press would do? It would nod its servile head, "Yes, sir, Mr. Establishment sir, these are dangerous militant groups and everybody knows it. You are quite plausible when you blame them for the police violence. After all, the police must keep order." Just like the Russian press with Putin.
Why is it that the Chinese government, which is vastly more repressive than Putin (if only because he is sitting within the spotlight and held to higher standards) escapes the constant drumbeat of propaganda in the Western mass media about sinister forces of repression, but conspiracy theories about Vladimir Putin are treated as proven every time one of his critics breaks a fingernail? Answer: China serves the U.S. as a source of cheap labor. It knows its place, except with respect to Taiwan. The repression of labor unions and political opponents there serves the interests U.S. businesses by insuring stability and low wages. Whereas Russia owns vast oil and gas resources and refuses to be pushed around. So Putin must be branded a monster of evil.
(4) I cannot believe that you have access to the Internet and yet have no access to alternative theories about the murder of Politskovskaya and the death of Litvinenko. The former had offended not only the Kremlin but also the Russian mafia, Chechen warlords, the oligarchs, corrupt politicians, and corrupt/vicious police and security organizations. What evidence do you have that the President of Russia ordered her death -- by OBVIOUS violence AND to coincide with the eve of the G8 Summit meeting?! And you talk about "believable" theories. Bah!
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by KorchYes, of course.
Khodorokovsky, Berezovsky and maybe someone else are minority of oligarchs - other ones are supporting Putin. And we know what`s happened with Khodorokovsky.
P.S. Reprisal with opposition of few oligarchs allowed Putin make good PR for himself - he was able to proclaim himself as fighter against oligarchs. And we can see that many people (even out of Russia) have believed that.
03 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Mark Adkins(1) and (3) Probably you misunderstood that at the moment I`m comparing not Russia and other states (which is very extensive complicated topic), but Yeltsin`s Russia and Putin`s Russia.
(1) OK, so Putin's government uses economic sanctions and propaganda to try to influence other countries. Sometimes this may be unjustified and sometimes it may be just be the way the big boys play politics. Just like the United States. As for Russian military imperialism, I am certain that you are right: Putin is ultimately deterred by practical cons h the eve of the G8 Summit meeting?! And you talk about "believable" theories. Bah!
(4) I wrote: "There are no believable alternative versions about these murders."
04 Dec 07
3 edits
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsWhat certainly is inconsistent is your claim to "circumspect and accurate political analysis" and the stuff you've written in some of your contributions to this thread, the latest example being the implication that BBC News is part of the "lazy and jingoistic Western mass media". BBC News (particularly international news) still enjoys a very high reputation for the accuracy and objectivity of its reporting - BBC World Service second to none in this respect . Your portrayal of the "Western media" as some monolithic entity orchestrating a "constant drumbeat of attacks" on Putin is itself incredibly "lazy". For example, Mary Dejevsky, one of the main foreign policy contributors to the Independent newspaper (a liberal British daily that I regularly read) is very pro Putin.
You seem to think that anyone who refuses to join the bandwagon of reflexive Putin bashing (regardless of the facts in any particular circumstance) is an "apologist", and that severely criticizing Putin where warranted is somehow inconsistent with circumspect and accurate political analysis. I think you've been conditioned by the lazy and jingoistic Wes per mass drawing)? Yes. I don't like it either, but facts are facts.
Once more your only answer is a cheap sneer when you didn't even see the report I referred to. For your information, the reporter read out the Kremlin Party's instructions, which had been given to each and every participant. They included talk of occupying key buildings if necessary (hence my reference to paranoia) and the need to surround embassies of 'hostile' countries to prevent anyone from the opposition making contact with them. And this evening's BBC news bulletins showed a small opposition demonstration outside the electoral commision in Moscow being forcibly broken up by Nashi heavies, who then roamed the streets looking for any more opposition supporters to pick on. (Not all of them looked like kids either.) They may not be strormtroopers in the Nazi mould, but their obvious single-minded devotion to one man seen as their country's saviour is very reminiscent of the personality cults of Hitler and Stalin. I think to describe those scenes as rather frightening and sinister is perfectly justified, rather more so than the lazy indulgence you show to their activities and motivation in the above post.
By the way, we all know Putin didn't need to rig the vote the way he did to win. As you say, he would have won anyway; no opposition was allowed to fight any sort of fair campaign. But doesn't it say something about the man and his methods that he rigged it anyway?
04 Dec 07
Originally posted by Northern LadI do not depict the Western media as a "monolithic entity." And I have, for instance, seen some bravely skeptical and realistic coverage of the Litvinenko case from elements of the British media (much more so than the U.S. media). But in discussing trends one must necessarily be general. When I speak of a "constant drumbeat" of anti-Putin coverage, I speak, of course, of a general trend; this does not imply a complete lack of exceptions. Does this mean that BBC reports never demonstrate bias against Putin and Russia? Hardly.
What certainly is inconsistent is your claim to "circumspect and accurate political analysis" and the stuff you've written in some of your contributions to this thread, the latest example being the implication that BBC News is part of the "lazy and jingoistic Western mass media". BBC News (particularly international news) still enjoys a very high reputa ...[text shortened]... sn't it say something about the man and his methods that he rigged it anyway?
Regarding your last paragraph: Yes -- it says that Putin is pathetically insecure. Personally, I think that this (rather than the cold-blooded malice depicted by the Western media) is what characterizes his regime: pettiness, stupidity, and pointless self-sabotage. Putin reminds me a lot of Richard Nixon. American politics has moved on to a much more sophisticated model of manipulated opinion and soft marginalization of dissent; whereas Putin is still operating in the old model. Not surprising considering that Russia's experience of capitalism and capitalist models of information management is only 15 years old. As long as Putin is in power, I am sure he will pick his teeth with a gold toothpick while wondering why his Western counterparts find his methods of population control unspeakably gauche. Poor little man.
04 Dec 07
Originally posted by zin23Very strange logic. If the opposition to Putin is entirely funded by "Khodorokovsky's cronies", that presumably means that without that there wouldn't be any opposition to Putin. This in turn means that either Putin is such a wonderful leader any opposition in unthinkable and superfluous, or he's a budding dictator. Which is it?
Everything you know is wrong!
I don't support Putin or the opposition btw.
04 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodAnd indeed it was 99% support for Putin on a 99% turnout! Well done Chechnya! Neighbouring Ingushetia was almost as impressive posting a 98% score. Has anyone heard how our own Ilyumzhinov fared in his Mickey Mouse republic? I'll personally be very disappointed in him if he hasn't at least got a score in the mid 90s. He normally likes to serve his patron well (including bumping off critical journalists it would appear). And I can't believe Roman Abramovitch (proud owner of Chelsea FC) will be far behind either. It sometimes seems that having one's own 'Autonomous Republic' is de rigueur in Putin's oligarchy.
99% support for putin's party in chechnya!?! 🙄 that's just laughable. sounds like the elections saddam hussein used to 'win'...
it looks clear now that putin's preparing to put up a puppet for presidency, and act as a prime minister after the next presidential election.
04 Dec 07
3 edits
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsYour argument seems to be that reports doubting any link between the Litvinenko murder and the Kremlin are necessarily "bravely sceptical and realistic" whereas other reports which examine the nature of the murder (polonium 210 poisoning) and the fact that the British police appear to have a very strong evidential case against Lugovoi (who after all was present at the poisoning and left a radiation trail across London and on an aeroplane) "demonstrate bias against Putin and Russia". Does it not occur to you that maybe you are the one who lacks objectivity and impartiality? Now Lugovoi is a duma MP for Zhirinovsky's rabidly xenophobic party (which slavishly supports Putin, of course), he is immune from all prosecution. Very convenient, eh?
I do not depict the Western media as a "monolithic entity." And I have, for instance, seen some bravely skeptical and realistic coverage of the Litvinenko case from elements of the British media (much more so than the U.S. media). But in discussing trends one must necessarily be general. When I speak of a "constant drumbeat" of anti-Putin coverage, I n counterparts find his methods of population control unspeakably gauche. Poor little man.
Your second paragraph I find very strange. Nixon was a ruthless, scheming, cheating, lying politician, so I suppose there are some similarities there. However, when you characterise Putin as "pathetically insecure", all I can say is that I hope I'm not standing in his way when he's feeling aggressively self-confident! History shows that dictators and autocrats often crush dissent a lot more than they actually need to just to stay in power; that's basically the way they are. Has it never occurred to you that maybe Putin simply doesn't care too much what the Western media say?
As for the reaction of his "Western counterparts" to "his methods of population control" (I think I understand what you mean!), it's been pretty compliant, at least until recently. Only a few years ago, our own Tony Blair had many of us reaching for our sickbags as he and Cherie spent an extremely congenial evening at the opera with their new best friends Mr & Mrs Putin at the height of the slaughter in Chechnya. And Germany was even more supine to the extent that Gerhard Schröder, the previous Chancellor, is now on the board of Gazprom, no doubt with an appropriate level of remuneration. Thank God the current German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has begun to stand up to Putin. But then she's from East Germany and undertstands very well the likes of Putin, who actually cut his teeth an a KGB operative in East Germany.
Finally, I have to admit to confusion over your own political standpoint. Sometimes you sound quite liberal when you berate Kasparov for not making common cause with liberal and centrist forces in Russia. Other times you rabbit on like an addled lefty with expressions like "capitalist models of information management" (my Trotskyite friends often talk like that). But there again there are two different Mark Adkinses on the web too!
04 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Northern Lad(1) Given a preponderance of reportage which treats inference as fact and presumes that Litvinenko's death was a political assassination undertaken by the Russian government, any coverage which refuses to selectively interpret the facts to fit this theory must be regarded as bravely skeptical and realistic.
Your argument seems to be that reports doubting any link between the Litvinenko murder and the Kremlin are necessarily "bravely sceptical and realistic" whereas other reports which examine the nature of the murder (polonium 210 poisoning) and the fact that the British police appear to have a very strong evidential case against Lugovoi (who after all was that). But there again there are two different Mark Adkinses on the web too!
The fact that Lugovoi was there (so were others) and that he left a radiation trail across London (so did others, including Livtinenko himself) does not constitute a "strong evidential case" against Putin. It does not even constitute a strong evidential case for homicide against Lugovoi. And finally, I am not at all convinced that Litvinenko's death was a homicide. Litvinenko was exposed more than once, and the radiation trail, examined in detail, suggests other activities.
Lugovoi, incidentally, could not have been extradited anyway, due to Article 61 of the Russian Constitution: "A citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported from Russia or extradited to another State."
(2) I am certain you are right when you say that Putin doesn't care too much what the Western media say. However, as a politician he knows he must be careful not to give his political enemies (at home or abroad) strong ammunition to use against him. Putin was the head of the Federal Security Service and a career KGB man before that. I am certain that, had he chosen (why?) to dispose of individuals like Politkovskaya and Litvinenko, he could have managed it professionally. Instead, we observe that the methods and the timing seem calculated to embarrass him. As Sergei Yastrzhembsky (a Putin aide) drily observed: "The excessive number of calculated coincidences between the deaths of people, who defined themselves as the opposition to the Russian authorities, and major international events involving Vladimir Putin is a source of concern." Nor was it necessary to employ such methods to "send a message" as some have said. If enough of one's enemies have unfortunate accidents or die from illness, the message should be clear enough. Note also that there is no legal basis for such orders by Putin, despite press reports claiming this. The law in question (passed during Putin's tenure) refers only to "terrorists and their bases abroad" and thus does not authorize general political assassinations or the murder of individuals merely critical of the Russian state.
(3) There are several (more than two) individuals using the name "Mark Adkins" on the Internet. As for Kasparov, I did not "berate him for not making common cause" with Yabloko and Union of Right Forces; I merely pointed out that his actions were less consistent with his political rhetoric about democracy and more consistent with political ambition and egotism. My "political standpoint" is none of your business, but I spoke the truth when I denied your erroneous accusation of being a "regular contributor to Marxist websites and discussion groups". I have never contributed to a Marxist website, and on the rare occasions I have had anything to say to individuals on the Internet who define themselves as Marxist, I found myself discouraged by their infantile dogmatism.
04 Dec 07
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsI think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the main points regarding Putin's Russia. One final thought though. You seem to be arguing throughout that you doubt whether Putin (or even his people in the Kremlin) was responsible for the various murders, because he would have done them more professionally. But the rigging of the elections (in which Putin definitely had a hand) was about as crude and unsubtle as it gets (not to mention the brutality in Chechnya, but that's another story). I'm not so sure that Putin is so concerned to have a reputation as a smooth operator.
(1) Given a preponderance of reportage which treats inference as fact and presumes that Litvinenko's death was a political assassination undertaken by the Russian government, any coverage which refuses to selectively interpret the facts to fit this theory must be regarded as bravely skeptical and realistic.
The fact that Lugovoi was there (so were ...[text shortened]... lves as Marxist, I found myself discouraged by their infantile dogmatism.
The mistake I made about your online identity was not an accusation, still less a smear. I think it was an understandable error in view of the fact that the Marxist Mark Adkins seems to write quite a lot on modern Russian history and politics. As I've said before, I have friends who are Marxists. I disagree with their politics but respect their point of view.