Article

2004-09-21 Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-09-21 4:54:50 AM|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Anonymous6579 TROLL 2004-09-21 8:01:19 AM|| 2004-09-21 8:01:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 thought provoking - I should have guessed it was Peters.

Posted by 2B 2004-09-21 8:04:00 AM|| 2004-09-21 8:04:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 The incompetence was typically, horrifyingly Russian. With all of the nationâs top anti-terror and special ops units on the scene, no one took charge. Units failed to coordinate with each other. No one took control of the local civilians. No one had a reaction plan in case things spun out of control.

Though that may be true, it seems a bit disingenuous. Little could have been done to achieve a happy ending here...even if our own highly trained units were on site.

Seems to me that Peter's is making a big stretch to say they don't want democracy. I think the Russians just realize that terror is a more immediate threat.

Posted by 2B 2004-09-21 8:10:18 AM|| 2004-09-21 8:10:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Editors, troll cleanup on Aisle _1_, Repeat, Aisle _1_... it's screwing up the screen formatting.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-09-21 8:38:48 AM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2004-09-21 8:38:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Actually, democracy is unlimited rule of the majority.

The best government system is the American form, a republic limited by its constitution and by a bill of individual rights. The USA is not a democracy -- and that should tell you something about the party that calls itself "democrat". The Founding Fathers very explicitly fought to create a Republic, not a Democracy.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-09-21 12:10:54 PM|| [http://radio.weblogs.com/0103811/categories/currentEvents/] 2004-09-21 12:10:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Would you be suprised that most Russians say that they had a better life under communism in the Soviet Union? And they would be right.
So why the surprise when these people now show little enthusiasm for democracy and capitalism?
It's easier to sing the praises of democracy and capitalism when you've had it for 300 years.

The big challenge is to convince them that it is better to stay the course of democracy and capitalism then to revert at some point to the old days. And that won't be easy.
The good news is, the kids (not to mention the nouveau rich) born since 1991 have had a taste of what democracy and capitalism can offer, and one hopes that they will not want to give it up easily.

Posted by Rafael 2004-09-21 12:41:53 PM|| 2004-09-21 12:41:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 The USA is not a democracy...

I have never understood people who make this argument. Technically you're correct, but it's a distinction without a difference, in this context. You're arguing that somehow inherent in the definition of "republic" is a Constitution and respect for individual rights. This is not true.

Posted by Angie Schultz 2004-09-21 1:02:26 PM|| [http://darkblogules.blogspot.com] 2004-09-21 1:02:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Russia is a failing state propped up by $40.bbl oil. When the oil price comes back down to earth, the Russian economy will collapse and the state will be revealed yet again as a shambles.

Think of Russia as Pakistan North, only with white faces and black shirts. The only really functioning part of Russia is the Moscow consumer economy, which gives you an idea of the inevitable reversion of the country into a reasonably functioning, westernized Muscovite core surrounded by bandit-controlled fiefdoms, and with a Chinese-dominated Far East region.

Posted by lex 2004-09-21 2:02:28 PM|| 2004-09-21 2:02:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Russia today is not capitalist. First, the banking system is a joke. There's almost no commercial lending, and nearly all of Russian savings are either spirited abroad or kept under mattresses. So the prime function of a capitalist economy-- channelling savings into investments in order to realize returns and expand production and wealth-- barely exists.

Also consider that those 30 or so bandits who, in addition to the uber-thief Khodorkovsky, have locked up about 40% of Russia's wealth, are primarily asset-strippers. Rockefeller and his ilk invested in the US. Despite their brutality, they also created industries and markets and efficient, state-of-the-art businesses. Khodorkovsky, Berezovsky, Fridman et al are merely channelling the cash flows from decrepit old former state resource companies into offshore accounts or playthings like soccer clubs.

This has nothing to do with capitalism; it's just another version of that grand game played in every failing, centralized nation: arbitrage the state. Whether the commodity in question is debt or oil or timber or municipal water supplies, the goal is to buy cheap from the state and sell dear on the private (usually overseas) market. Hardly capitalism.

Posted by lex 2004-09-21 2:29:49 PM|| 2004-09-21 2:29:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 One comment I heard when I left Latvia haunted me. It is not unrelated to this thread.

When I asked Latvians and Russians living in Latvia how they felt about their future now that they were free of Soviet interference, I heard the following sentiments:

"We are disappointed that the West has ignored us. We need guidance on how to make our new countries strong and free, but when we seek counsel, there isn't anybody there. All the great intellects are gone already; who will guide us?"

In this anti-American international climate, the problem only worsens, because our counsel is not valued. That's the world's loss.

Posted by jules 187 2004-09-21 2:57:31 PM|| 2004-09-21 2:57:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Hey, Fred, I just read your interspersed comments re: the Russian Army.

I have a question... I've read elsewhere that part of the problem with the Russian Army is that they don't have as many non-commissioned officers as a comparable western army, and those they have don't have the authority those in (for instance) the US army have. Is this true?

Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-09-21 4:27:42 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2004-09-21 4:27:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 A hundred years later the Greeks were studying Macedonian.

Oy, vey. That last sentence brings me the historical shivers. Even if you believe Ancient Macedonians not to have been a Greek but rather a foreign tribe, one sure thing is that the ruling dynasty atleast (including, *especially*, Alexander the Great) were a great Hellenizing force promoting the *Greek* language everywhere they went or conquered.

Yeah, I know that was not your point, but perhaps it should have been: If it hadn't been for what Athenean democracy had created in the period before the Macedonian conquest, then perhaps the kings of Macedonia wouldn't have loved Greek culture so much. Perhaps in that case the Macedonian conquests *would* have destroyed Greek civilisation rather than spread it across Asia. If it hadn't been for that culture, perhaps the Romans would have likewise destroyed Greek civilisation rather than adopt it. Perhaps Athens would have been now been considered as forgotten and trivial as minor Celtic or Iberian tribes that the Romans likewise conquered. *If* it hadn't been for its democracy.

Now, Putin is creating an unloveable system, such as the Soviets had created before him, and the Czars had created before *them*. Doesn't he realize that unloveable systems only seem hard until they shatter in their entirety to be blown away in the wind?

Yeah, personal freedom rates above democracy. But democracy has so far been the best guarantee *against* violations of personal freedom. When democracy has been thoroughly destroyed unshielded it will be far too late to start building barracades towards the protection of liberty.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-21 5:08:14 PM|| 2004-09-21 5:08:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 If the distinction makes no difference, Angie, then why, when asked what kind of government the Cosntitutional Convention had created, did Benjamin Franklin reply, "A Republic if you can keep it." instead of a Democracy, if you can keep it?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-21 6:05:07 PM|| 2004-09-21 6:05:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Perhaps Athens would have been now been considered as forgotten and trivial as minor Celtic or Iberian tribes that the Romans likewise conquered. *If* it hadn't been for its democracy.

So! But what have you done for us lately?

Posted by Shipman 2004-09-21 6:05:59 PM|| 2004-09-21 6:05:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Aris, I was unaware that Alexander spread Greek _democracy_ throughout his empire; he seemed to be a fairly strong believer in dictatorship, and his empire broke up into a bunch of monarchies founded by his generals (for instance, Ptolemaic Egypt).

I also thought that Byzantium was only as democratic as the late Roman Empire in general (i.e. not very, with hereditary classes and professions and the like).

Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-09-21 6:13:20 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2004-09-21 6:13:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 jules: "We are disappointed that the West has ignored us. We need guidance on how to make our new countries strong and free, but when we seek counsel, there isn't anybody there. All the great intellects are gone already; who will guide us?" In this anti-American international climate, the problem only worsens, because our counsel is not valued.

No great loss. The counsel provided by US economists in the early years of eastern Europe's piratizations did little good. Latvia's problems are primarily due to corruption, only secondarily due to the Russian-Latvian and other political divides. Estonia points the way forward: reform the state, reduce the state, focus on export-oriented services.

Posted by lex 2004-09-21 6:33:37 PM|| 2004-09-21 6:33:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 I didn't say he spread Greek *democracy*. But both Sparta and Athens were conquered by Alexander, and yet it was certainly the Attican, not the Lacedemonean dialect that lasted, the Attican dialect from which later derived the language of the gospels. All the plays, all the art, pretty much *everything* that lasted is Athenean, not Spartan.

Given how Sparta was even victorious over Athens in the war between them, doesn't that tell you something about civilisational value?

Byzantium was probably even less democratic than the late Roman Empire. But by that time we've probably already reached the true end of Ancient Greek civilisation. I described how Athenean culture survived Alexander and Rome, while Sparta's perished -- I didn't claim it was immortal.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-21 6:35:10 PM|| 2004-09-21 6:35:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 The problem in Russia is there's no history of a middle class. There are only those in power and everyone else. The middle class is ESSENTIAL for any form of representative government to work. There has to be a reason to want to acquire and keep wealth, there has to be some way to generate that wealth for the majority of the people, and there has to be some way of acquiring power other than by force. This is all done in our nation (and in most nations where freedom prospers) by a middle class. Where the middle class is weak, governments are more powerful. Only when people are given the freedom to create wealth will they actually produce more than the minimum required of them. Until Russia develops a functioning middle class, it's going to be a muddle.

As for the difference between a pure democracy and a Republic, one has to revert back to the old story that a democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. The purpose of a Republic is to control the excesses of pure democracy, while still operating within the guidelines of democratic government. That means the checks and balances inherent in our Constitution, a written "Bill of Rights" that specifically prohibit government from doing certain things (Don't we wish it would actually adhere to it!), and an inherent trust in the rule of Law, rather than Power. The comments of several people here today underscore how poorly that idea is being taught today, and how few people understand what our government is supposed to be about. That's especially true of our government "officials".

Russia can adapt any form of government it chooses, but until there is a middle class with actual financial power to force change, it won't happen, and Russia and all its former states will fail to create a lasting government. The lack of a middle class is what causes all the failures of government in the Middle East and Latin America. There isn't enough wealth spread through the central portion of the economy to provide enough political power to secure that wealth and expand upon it. Until there is a viable middle class, and it has enough power in the form of wealth generation, the prospects of stable government anywhere in the world is minimal.

Posted by Old Patriot 2004-09-21 6:36:37 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2004-09-21 6:36:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 HiYa OP! How ya been?

Posted by Shipman 2004-09-21 7:27:43 PM|| 2004-09-21 7:27:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 ... I've read elsewhere that part of the problem with the Russian Army is that they don't have as many non-commissioned officers as a comparable western army, and those they have don't have the authority those in (for instance) the US army have.

Essentially correct. Commissioned officers in the Russian military perform the leadership and other duties that a non-com normally does in other, Western, militaries (That situation is also found is many Arab militaries as well).

Posted by Pappy 2004-09-21 7:28:17 PM|| 2004-09-21 7:28:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Its always scary when I agree with Aris.

The correct way to go from a total state to a capitilist one is to follow the japanese example of creating an economic zone, rather than do it all at once. Democracy can follow in its footsteps, and you liberalize the country in chunks.

It gives you an opportunity to design the appropriate controls without the upset that russia has now.

Posted by flash91 2004-09-21 8:01:56 PM|| 2004-09-21 8:01:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Anonymous6579 2004-09-21 8:01:19 AM|| 2004-09-21 8:01:19 AM|| Front Page Top

21:44 Fawadi
16:45 Randall R.
11:17 Anonymouse
01:25 Iraq 2004
08:01 Anonymous6579
06:38 Silk
06:35 Silk
04:04 Ben
01:19 Anonymous6578
00:55 Anonymous6577
00:31 Anonymous6576
00:17 Anonymous6575
18:25 Memesis
18:16 Bulldog
17:05 lex
01:20 ricky
01:13 lex
00:56 Asedwich
23:55 Super Hose
23:51 Long Hair Republican
23:43 WhiteHouseDetox
23:34 WhiteHouseDetox
23:27 Biff Wellington
23:25 Memesis