Magicians Kara-Murza And Levada Center

Vladimir Kara-Murza is a Western educated Russian opposition figure who publishes an English language blog on World Affairs. In his recent (published on 25 January) article he conjures up some extraordinary propaganda. The article bears the title: 'New Protests Mount in Russia as Kremlin Moves to Fix Vote.' Already in the title there is an element of propaganda. Kara-Murza does not provide any proof of a mounting protests in Russia, he only tells us of an upcoming demonstration, not to mention that he has no proof that Kremlin will fix the vote. He bases his claim on numbers published by the Levada Center in December. I quote:

As Russia’s March 4th presidential vote approaches, Vladimir Putin is beginning to realize that, for the first time in 12 years, he may be risking defeat. With 36 percent support in the polls, he will likely have to go into a runoff (local authorities have are already begun preparations), where the outcome will be far from certain. With its survival at stake, the regime is pulling out all the stops to ensure that its man is declared the winner in March.  

He then continues with the news that the Central Electoral Commission disqualified Grigoriy Yavlinskiy from the elections for having more than quarter of signatures in support of his nomination defective, as if Yavlinskiy presented any danger to Putin, and banning him from running is somehow helping Putin win the election. I will show that this is not the case, and Yavlinskiy might as well have had problems with his application. But first let me stop at the figure 36%.

What Kara-Murza cites are numbers published in December by Levada in a table with the following description:

If the elections of the president of Russia were held the upcoming Sunday, would you take part in them, and if yes, for which of the current politicians would you vote? (open survey)    

You will notice that there is something strange about the numbers. For instance, Zyuganov, the leader of the Communist Party, only has 6% support, and is actually behind Vladimir Zhirinovskiy, who takes second place with 7%, Medvedev only has 3%, Mironov 2%, Other candidates 1%, 22% do not know for whom they will vote, 9% will not vote, 11% do not know whether they will vote. The last three numbers are important because they give a hint as to what the nature of the survey is, even though Levada does not make it clear in its description.

The true nature of this kind of survey was revealed by Levada on 25 January, the very same day Kara-Murza published his article, therefore there is a chance he was not aware of it at the time of writing, although there also is a chance that he was aware of it, and that he deliberately quoted those month old figures because it was convenient. He certainly did not revise his article, and the only update he has underneath the article, concerns a decision of the Moscow mayor's office to let a demonstration planned for 4 February to go ahead.

The January results published by Levada have this to say about the kind of survey Kara-Murza cites:

If the elections of the president of Russia were held the upcoming Sunday, would you take part in them, and if yes, for which of the current politicians would you vote? (open survey, from among all people that were inquired, no list of candidates was provided) 

A bit more information is included here, the key information here is that the number is 'from among all people inquired', that means everybody, even those who said they will not vote. The other important piece of information is that 'no list of candidates was provided' to the inquired, people could write in anything. It seems that out of the total number, and with no help of a list of candidates, Putin's rating has risen to 37% in January, he leads the polls well ahead of anyone else. But Levada also included results from a different survey in January, it was described as follows:

Would you come to the elections of the president of Russia, and if yes, for whom would you vote if the list of candidates included the following politicians?    

The results are divided into two columns. The first one is named: '% from among all those that were inquired', the second '% from among those that are decided'. The latter is marked by an asterisk and the description behind the asterisk, underneath the table reads:

*from among those that most likely will come to the elections, or those that will definitely come to the elections.

In the column marked by an asterisk, Putin gathered 63%, from among all those that were asked 43%. The second place in the column marked by an asterisk belongs to Zyuganov with 15%. Yavlinskiy also happens to be to be in that column with mere 2% of all votes. I have to wonder, how much would the Kremlin actually gain from excluding Yavlinskiy from the race? In terms of support that man is an absolute nobody. I understand that the liberal opposition likes to say that all its failures are politically motivated, but I do not see the motive here. Using the logic of Russian liberals, I could say that Yavlinskiy did make mistakes in his application on purpose, in order to later claim that he is being oppressed by the Kremlin. Knowing that he cannot win, I think he does have a motive. But to be fair, I have no proof, and so do the liberals with their claims of politically motivated disqualification of Yavlinskiy.

But more important questions need answering here. For instance, what is wrong with the numbers published by Levada? It included almost no description in December, but suddenly it included a massive description of the same poll in January, and even included results from another poll, the latter likewise properly detailed. You see, Levada is a liberal organisation and is anti-Putin. If you visit their home page, you will see on your right side of the screen, that they provide an internship programme for young Russian specialists called 'Training Programme For Russian Policy and Opinion Makers' together with the Polish Institute of Public Affairs (Instytut Spraw Publicznych), and with support of the National Endowment for Democracy. The latter is a US, government funded, NGO which is never far from places where coloured revolutions occur, and it is no wonder they are in Russia too, educating young Russian specialists in how to make 'opinion and policy.'

What you observe in the case of Kara-Murza and Levada is precisely that making of opinion. Kara-Murza publicised low results in favour of Putin, and declared that Putin will have to go into a run off, and the government will have to fix the vote to make him win. It is called: 'creating an opinion in advance', so that in the event of elections, the liberals can all shout how Putin's results do not match the opinion polls which were previously widely publicised by liberal-friendly media. In my opinion, Kara-Murza cleverly cited the poorly described results from December for that very purpose. Meanwhile in Russia, several news outlets have cited those 37% from January as Putin's pre-election rating. According to PolitOnline, these were: Gazeta.ru, Vedmosti, Ekho Moskvy, MAYAK, and Kommersant. And people say there is no freedom of speech in Russia.

To wrap up, I must admit that I like Levada, it is the only Russian institution I go to to learn about the public opinion in the country. The reason is simple, although until now I have not found it necessary to cite any such figures, I would prefer them to come from a source that cannot be called pro-Kremlin, or God forbid 'Surkovite propaganda.' But now I realise that my safe source might not be all that honest unfortunately.      

Kilos Of Resin For The Meeting

There is no meeting without a good doobie...

So, a representative of 'Just Russia' from St. Petersburg, Dmitriy Larikov, got busted in Moscow with three kilos of hash. According to the link he might have wanted to supply one of the opposition demonstrations (so called meet the dealer sessions - that's why I guess they call them meetings). Here is some more information:

A plastic case with 30 bundles of hash, weighing 3 kilos, were found and confiscated during a search...

This guy must be a pro, keeping his stash in a plastic, most likely air-tight, container. If the stuff was any good, it would be funky as hell, this was certainly not his first run. But does Dima have customers? Sure he does, the meeting-people, being middle class Muscovites, must be consuming drugs in massive amounts. Take my word for it, I know the kind of people better than anyone, they will be not much different to their own kind in Prague or London. Here is a potential customer.  

Issues With Comments

There is a stupid thing this system apparently does. When it suspects spam, it will submit your comment for moderation. I never set the moderation on myself, nor it seems can I turn it off. I told the service here that I can deal with spammers myself when I am present, and otherwise my readers should be able to post comments without an unnecessary hindrance. I might not be present, and you might wait for hours before I make your comments visible. Spammers are a nuisance, but this frankly is worse.

Thank you for understanding. 

New Opposition Is A Dream Of A Westernizer

Alexandre Latsa sent me his article in RIANovosti French version...

The article bears the title 'Une nouvelle opposition 'Made in Russia'' - 'A New Opposition 'Made in Russia''. In it he quotes a certain Marina, a Franco-Russian, with which he had a conversation on facebook. I decided to comment on it myself because I found the talk all too familiar. Here is the account of their conversation according to Alexandre:

She wrote to me: 'the political scene is blocked because Putin's party does not allow for the possibility of development of other parties.' Marina wishes 'that new parties, strong and young, will appear, and [wishes] not to live with one dominant party such as the United Russia.' She also decries the 'facade multi-party system' which rules in Russia, because for her, 'the opposition parties are old parties governed by Soviet minds, people vote for them only to not vote for United Russia.' 

Why is this familiar to me? Because this is the typical talk of a middle class, Westernized, liberal-minded, Muscovite. I have heard them all before, one dominant party is bad, the opposition is not allowed to develop, the opposition that exists is sovok, actually it's no opposition at all, only a facade, and the people vote for it because they do not want to want to cast their vote for United Russia. 

Alexandre continues with making a comparison to politics in France, perhaps in an effort to demonstrate that what is said above is naive. It is, but the exercise of making a comparisons to some Western country is what middle class, Westernized, liberal-minded, Muscovites do every time they express disappointment with Russian politics. They create in their minds some ideal to which Russia does not live up to while doing this comparison. It is hard to argue with them because they religiously believe in that ideal. And it is always some imaginary Western country that serves as an ideal, you never notice them make a comparison to Asia, it is always some imaginary Paris, or imaginary Prague, or imaginary London, never Taipei, Tokyo, or Singapore.

In their minds, Russia should be like the West, and it isn't. But interestingly, Russian political culture resembles Asia more than it does Europe. This is the Parliament of Singapore:

The People's Action Party held a majority in the parliament since 1959. From 1968 to 1980 it was actually so dominant it had all the seats in the assembly.

Similar situation can be observed in Japan, where the Liberal Democratic Party ruled with certain exceptions for 54 years. Japan now has a new dominant party, the Democratic Party. 

The same thing can be observed in Taiwan with the Kuomintang. People are happy to vote for one party if it does its job. 

The middle class, Westernized, liberal-minded, Muscovite is an anxious creature when it comes to politics. Anxious perhaps that Russian politics does not resemble the chaos of Ukraine, where parties are formed and burn out before people can remember their name? Or perhaps he misses the fragile coalitions of the Czech Republic, with frequent rule of unelected technocrats? It is hard to really determine what these creatures actually want, and if they did not think of themselves as really relevant, which they are not, I would not even be writing this article.

I could also challenge the notion that the Communists are a facade opposition, that is not real opposition, or even challenge the notion that they are 'sovok', that is they have not progressed. But I will not, such an exercise of debunking such notions has no merit. 

The Reason For Low Marriage Rates

Huffington Post reiterates what I keep on saying:

I quote:

We feel that one of the most important reasons for the drop in the number of traditional marriages is that the current generation is influenced by the high divorce rate of their parents. Remember: Divorce rates rose dramatically in the 70's, 80's and continue to remain high. As a result, the children of these past generations may be leery of the very thought of marriage. Often, they did not grow up in a stable and conflict free family. On the contrary, many children from these generations "learned" that marriage is trouble, that it resulted in battles between mom and dad, and often ended in divorce, with all the emotional and economic stress that followed. They were the victims of breakup of their traditional nuclear families.

I see two problems with the article, the first is that its argument is gender neutral, and the second is that the argument is highly individualistic, focusing on the individual experiences of children growing up in broken families that is. It is mostly men who find no use for marriage because boys learn that daddy got taken to the cleaners, and kicked out of the house. Girls on the other hand learn that mom got the house, and alimony. 

But the focus on individual experiences is misplaced because the problems with contemporary marriage can be revealed in ways other than personal experience. The information can be passed on to you by a colleague at work, that bloke in the pub, or this blog among others.

Hat tip: Men's Voices, the site is becoming my favourite. And lest I forget, there might be another reason for low marriage rates:

American Constituency Goes To The Embassy

To meet Ambassador McFaul himself, not to vote. See also my recent post... 

They do not say much about what they did with McFaul, whether they discussed anything that would be of interest. I have found nothing in particular that I could cite. Apparently aside from the Liberasts, there also were Commies present. On their way back Liberast usual suspects accused the journalists (Nashi, or God knows who was filming) of being a 'Surkovite propaganda.' Vladislav Yur'evich must be like really cool. 

Strong Independent Women Raise Psychos

I have said something like this before on this site...

Somebody in the comments at A Voice for Men (where else?), linked to this interesting article at Komsomol'ka, which compares the Austrian dungeon keeper Joe Fritzl to certifiable nutcases of the same kind in Russia. I quote:

Surprisingly, Fritzl, Mokhov, Priklopil and Komin are similar in both history and profession. They were all crazy about their mothers, grew up without fathers and were beaten in childhood. All their mothers were strong women. Fritzl's mother kicked her husband out and Mokhov's mother controlled who Mokhov brought home in the evenings even when he was 53.  

I am amazed, who would have thought? 

Marketing Historical Myths

Cool brands for idiots...

A recent article addressing the proliferation of Bandera veneration in Ukraine notes that Bandera, and with him OUN/UPA (Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists/Ukrainian Insurgent Army), have become a successful brand in some parts of Ukraine. Bandera has become something like a Che Guevara, idiots know nothing about him but he is everywhere. Bandera merchandise is sold in local souvenir shops, and OUN/UPA themed clubs and restaurants are now apparently not limited to Lvov, there is one now in Kiev too. And back in Lvov, there is apparently one kryivka (shelter of OUN/UPA fighters after which the aforementioned clubs are named and themed) in a school too:

(hat tip: Michael Averko) - According to the report, the people behind school kryivka plan to engage more schools in their project. And they also have cool OUN/UPA themed hoodies, I do not know whether these are for sale.

Meanwhile in the diaspora, they decided to put Holdomor on credit cards:

I don't know what to write as a commentary, because I do not want to sound too cynical.  

The Mazepa Question Series: Filip Orlik In 'Old Ukrainian'

Addressing the Mazepa myth once again. This post requires some acquaintance with Slavic languages...

Or rather a post-Mazepa myth in this case. Pylyp Orlyk, in Ukrainian, or rather Filip Orlik as he is called in his constitution, according to Svidomites, wrote the first European constitution, and judging from the implications of such a statement, the first democratic constitution in the World. Simply put, Ukrainians brought the light of democracy to the World. I could address these claims, and I surely will in a future instalment, but in this one I would like to address some other claim the Svidomites make.

Filip Orlik was Mazepa's sidekick, or more precisely his chief scribe, and was elected the successor of Mazepa in exile, in the Ottoman Empire. One of the claims the Svidomites make regarding this document is that the so called primordial/democratic/Euro-global constitution was written in 'Old Ukrainian' alongside Latin. Let us examine this so called 'Old Ukrainian' language. I present to you a copy of the original, or more precisely one page out of it:

 

In the eighteenth century, people's style of writing was different to what people use today, so here comes my attempt at transliterating the above into something more modern:

Договоры и постановленя

Правъ и вольностей войсковыхъ межи Ясне Велможнымъ Его Милости Паном Филипомъ Орликомъ новоизбранымъ Войска Запорожскаго Гетманомъ, и межи Енеральными особами, Полковниками, и тимъ же войскомъ Запорожскимъ с полною зъ обоихъ сторонъ обрадою.

Утверженные

При вольной Елекцiи формальною присягою отъ тогож Ясне Вельможного Гетмана.

Потверженные

Року отъ рождества Христова 710 (1710), мҌсяца Априля 5.

Во имя Отца и Сына и святаго Духа Бога в Троице святой славимаго. Нехай станется на вҌкопомную войска Запорожскаго и всего народу Малороссiйскаго славу и памятку.

Дивный и непостижимий въ судьбахъ своихъ Богъ милосердный.  

I must say that eighteenth century 'Old Ukrainian' was very similar to modern Russian. Except for the overuse of the hard sign which is the norm in pre-1917 publications, (1) the words pretty much have the forms found in modern Russian. In the Ukrainian language the forms of the same words happen to be quite different. For example: 'voyska' (Ukrainian: viyska), 'narod' (Ukrainian: narid), even 'Pylyp' is named 'Filip' in the text above. One similarity with Ukrainian is the presence of some words of Western Slavic origin like 'pan' (lord), 'rok' (year - Ukrainian: 'rik'), nekhay (let), and possibly pamyatka (memory). Some words are different, or have different forms to what is used in Russian today, and they might be either archaic spelling, regional corruptions, influence of Latin, or Old Church Slavonic. I cannot say with certainty which is which though. Notice the date of the document, which is 'April' 5, in modern Russian April is 'Aprel'', and compare that to Ukrainian 'Kviten'' (from Polish: kwiecień).

Simply put, my opinion is that the language is archaic Russian with some Polish, Latin, and Church Slavonic lexicon. Notice I never talk about Ukrainian as modern, because Ukrainian is itself a modern invention, late nineteenth and early twentieth century invention. It is real wonder how so called Ukrainian (in Svidomite terms) speaking politicians made the evolutionary jump from what you read above to this:

So when some Svidomite tells you that Ukrainian was discriminated for hundreds of years, tell him what old man Valuev said: 'there was never, is not, and cannot be' Old Ukrainian language. Unless you speak of the vernacular speech of the peasant masses. Only problem is that the peasant masses, being almost universally illiterate, lack documentation. That there is a Ukrainian language today is thanks to efforts of nationalists, supported by the Poles (who actually happened to be the originators of the whole thing), Austro-Hungarians, and the Soviet government. Russian language is not foreign to Ukraine, it is indigenous.

Also notice that the document speaks about Little Russian (Malorossiyskiy) people. I was recently told here in the comments that Peter's victory at Poltava meant that 'Little Russian' was used more often than 'Rusyn', the latter being allegedly a proto-Ukrainian ethnonym. Seems like Orlik and his fugitive Cossacks had no problems going along with Petrine policy of Little Russification.  

1) In Czechoslovakia among the Russian emigration, and Russian language books published in Subcarpathian Rus, the overuse of the hard sign continued well into 1920's and 1930's. 

Feminist Pathetic Attempt At Damage Control

Stupid Australian Feminist Tory Shepherd attempts to label Men's Rights as extremist...

What an article we have here. This creature has really outdone herself. She begins:

THERE'S a movement that sees males - generally straight, middle-aged, white males - as the new oppressed. Seriously.

Because straight, middle aged, white males cannot be wronged in any possible way. They run the system, don't you know? But this overlooks a large number of men who happen to be into pro-male advocacy, and who are black (or any other race for that matter, other than white that is), many young men too, and even gay men. The Men's Rights Movement (MRM) is not about race, age, or even sexual orientation, it does not give a damn about these things.

Men's activists have been around for decades, but thanks to the internet they're getting slicker, more organised, more professional, and more visible. 

You see, the internet gave many disenfranchised voices a chance to be heard. I do not almost watch TV, or read newspapers, unless the latter are online and not behind a pay-wall. The day when the TV, and the print media had a monopoly on discourse are gone. The day when you had to write a letter to an editor to express your outrage at something you saw or read, and when organising a writing campaign was difficult without having an organisation in place, are gone. The days when you could just write anything, and not worry that some chap with a laptop on the other side of the world will rip it to shreds, are also gone.

Men's outcomes in some areas really are poor. Male suicide rates are three to four times higher, their life expectancy is lower. Girls often outperform boys at school. Males are more likely to be incarcerated, more likely to be addicted.

But these genuine issues are not the ones that concern the new breed of men's activists. These men are aggrieved because they see misandry - the hatred of males - everywhere in society, from government down.

They have a persecution complex, and aggressively lobby for better rights for men - usually at the expense of women.

Here we see a common tactic that the Feminists employ. They list some problems that men face. That would be the problems that the particular Feminist speaking or writing is actually aware of, because to be frank, they do not care about male issues one bit. And after this torrent of out of place facts, they declare that Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) do not care about them, as if they know or care about what MRAs say or do. They then declare that MRAs have a problem with Feminism, and they are only out to harm women, or something of the kind. Notice she does not even mention what exactly MRAs lobby for, or actually she does in a way:

...A Voice for Men, recently published an article called "A path to Australian apartheid", which outlines how feminists have infiltrated government to spread their ideology and exclude men. 

She is shooting herself and her sisters in the foot by giving out a name of a website, and a title of an article. Kyle Lovett, the author of the abovementioned article, does a good investigative job on the infiltration of radical Feminists into the Australian government. I guess this is what prompted Shepherd to go on a damage control mission. But Kyle did not stop at exposing Feminists in the government, a more recent article speaks about an agenda to expand the definition of domestic violence. Actually 'domestic violence' is an incorrect term because we have feminists on the job, and they only care about male on female violence. No other violence exists, even though any serious study of intimate partner violence (that is a study untainted by Feminist ideology), reveals that this is roughly a 50/50 issue. Actually women are slightly more likely to be the perpetrators. The Feminist agenda pretty much threatens to put any man behind bars on a mere accusation of a woman, and this goes beyond mere exclusion.

The site compares "feminists, manginas, white knights and other agents of misandry" to clansmen, skinheads and neo-Nazis. 

Feminists are bunch of bigots, and unlike clansmen, skinheads, and neo-Nazis, Feminism has actual political power in the countries of the Anglosphere and elsewhere. Its bigotry is acceptable and rarely challenged, it appears on TV screens and on the pages of the press, and Feminists have grown used to acting with impunity. This is changing though, and articles like the one under review are a sign that this change is making the right kind of people worried.

Shepherd then goes on to list some core claims that MRAs make. She does not cite any MRAs, some of these notions are often far more widespread and not limited to MRM, and although she gets things a bit a messed up, these are rather true statements: 

Women have never been worse off than men - this is a feminist lie and is part of the plot to subjugate men.

I do recall myself, and other people, challenging the Feminist notion that women were oppressed or discriminated against in the past. I do not recall myself or anyone else linking that to any plot to subjugate men. Maybe Shepherd knows something we don't know.

Women are all gold-diggers who use marriage and divorce to extort money from men. 

I believe that this is a play on 'not all women are like that.' Sure they are not, and MRAs know this. But a significant number of women unfortunately are like that, and what is worse, the courts aid them in such behaviour. One could run an entire blog about gold-diggers, going through celebrity gossip websites in search of source material. 

Family law courts let women legally steal children from men, and let women get away with false accusations of child abuse. 

Actually, accusing the father of child abuse has been a common tactic used by women in custody battles. This claim did not originate out of nowhere.

Women routinely falsely accuse innocent men of rape. 

They do actually, let us remember DSK, Julian Assange, Duke Lacrosse, Hofstra, and many, many more such cases. I actually know of a blog devoted to such cases which suggests this practice is pretty common if not routine.

Domestic violence statistics are warped; men are victims as much as women and women make false claims about violence in courts that are too inclined to believe them.

A correction here is needed, it is Feminist advocacy groups whose domestic violence statistics are warped, actually they often happen to be utterly invented. And just like in the case of rape, women lie about violence, and also about sexual harassment.

One prominent men's movement go-to guy, "Angry Harry", also says feminism is to blame for traffic congestion and global warming. 

She does not cite Angry Harry's article, or better articles, on this issue. What Angry Harry says is that Feminism has created a situation where people do not shack up and form families. This results in more houses being built than households formed. It is an interesting argument in fact, far exceeding the intellectual abilities of Shepherd. 

Over at The Punch we're devoting a series of articles to debunking each of these claims 

I suggest you read this article to see how that went so far. You cannot debunk poorly constructed talking points which are nevertheless largely true in essence. And since these notions are far more widespread in the society than the general awareness about MRM, all Shepherd does is give the MRM more credibility rather than presenting it in a bad light.   

These false claims are not just sinister ideas confined to the interwebs - they're calls to action. Men's Rights Extremists are actively lobbying to change Australian laws. They are spreading misinformation and trying to discredit good policies and good programs.

For example, they were recently up in arms about White Ribbon Day - the campaign to stop violence against women.

The problem here is that there is little good at a campaign to stop violence against women. What stopping violence against women really means is that 'men are the perpetrators of violence.' It is campaign to demonize men and masculinity masquerading behind the noble slogan of stopping violence against women. How could anyone be against such a noble thing? A dirty play on emotions, and male biological urge to protect.

Dr Michael Flood, White Ribbon Ambassador and expert on men and gender issues, has written extensively on "men's rights" men.

He says the internet has transformed them and allows them to appear a "massive horde" out of proportion to their actual numbers.

But that doesn't mean their bark is worse than their bite. Dr Flood says they have already influenced family law, government policy and community attitudes, subtly shifting the balance to better protect perpetrators and discredit victims.

Dr. Michael Flood is an expert on men? And yet he leads a campaign which is based on ideology rather than facts?I guess he is an expert on men by the virtue of gaining that expertise via Feminist ideology. Ideology driven frauds like Michael Flood would like to claim that MRAs want to protect perpetrators and discredit victims, but who the MRAs really aim to discredit, are people like him.

It is only good if MRAs have some influence, and if that influence only grows. 

The Russian Liberal Opposition's Hopeless Struggle

I found an interesting leaked diplomatic cable...

It is from 2008, but its contents are no less true today as they were then. It is a summary of an opinion of Masha Lipman from the Carnegie Moscow Centre, and the cable bears the title: 'Russian Opposition Grapples With Authoritarian Success.' The document pretty much confirms what I was saying all along:

Based on recent conversations, many in the traditional liberal opposition fear permanent marginalization under the popular Putin-Medvedev governing tandem, which continues to float high on oil prices and consistent increases in real wages, with no guarantee that even a reform-oriented Medvedev will address the economic challenges facing Russia (inflation, demographics, stagnant oil and gas production, and a crumbling infrastructure) with a Western toolbox.

The thing with high oil and gas prices, to which there seems to be no end, is that they are not exactly what most Russians make their money on. The government might acquire large foreign currency reserves from oil and gas, but I would bet this is not the only source of income. 

The problems of infrastructure and inflation (demographics have stabilised, and stagnant oil and gas production is a problem of infrastructure underdevelopment) are in my opinion the Achilles' heel of the current administration, and they should do more about it. But this is not what concerns the authors of this cable. What concerns them is whether these issues will be addressed with a 'Western toolbox.' What is this 'Western toolbox'? Does Russia need a 'Western toolbox' to develop its infrastructure?

Both opposition and establishment figures downplay the U.S. ability to promote reform in Russia, given the backlash over Kosovo, missile defense, and NATO expansion, and the ingrained belief that Russia's democratic course is for Russians alone to determine.

As far as I'm concerned, the political process in any country is for the people of that country to determine. What business does US have in promoting reform? We have already seen enough of what US promotion of reform means in countless countries around the world, including Russia.

Carnegie Center's Masha Lipman told us that Putin's success in developing Russia economically, while relying on an authoritarian political model, challenged assumptions that liberals such as herself had about the need for stronger democratic institutions and a more developed civil society as engines for growth. While Putin was the lucky beneficiary of sky-high oil and gas prices, Lipman said the track record of nine years of 10 percent average growth in wages had produced a significant increase in the standard of living and in morale, which was impossible for any opposition to belittle. The economic "euphoria" was matched by an atypical Russian optimism about the future, pride over Russia's return to the international stage, and satisfaction over the fact that Russia could not be taken for granted. Noting the public delirium over successive victories -- in hockey, soccer, and the Eurovision contest -- Lipman dismissed residual Kremlin concerns over the possibility of an "orange revolution." Russians are living better than they ever had, under a regime that is the "least repressive in Russian history." People may grumble, she said, but "life is quantifiably better." The result, she commented, was a profound political apathy and voluntary ceding of authority to the state.

One can argue with the liberal talk about a lack of democracy, and authoritarianism. Yeltsin is never called authoritarian, because he was working with a Western toolbox. Nevertheless, it confirms that Russians are living better, and under a regime that is the least repressive in Russian history. Exactly what I keep on saying.

One can make whatever he wants out of the recent demonstrations, the powers that be are not much moved by them. The protests would have to first have a leader, and a concrete ideology, and a structure to threaten the government in any way. Otherwise it is just the usual grumbling suspects enhanced by many curious people that came to a sanctioned demonstration. Maidan had electable leaders, and support of electable parties.

Whether Putin's brand of authoritarianism could be sustained over the next eight years given the challenges posed by inflation, demographics, public attachment to entitlements, and the plateau in oil and gas production brought on by expanding state control and lack of upstream investment, Lipman argued, was "an open question," but not one that automatically resolved itself in favor of Western-style reformers.

The recent loss in support for United Russia went to the Communists, whose support has doubled. People want free stuff! Free education, free medical care. When viewed from the perspective of people wanting all this, the liberals have nothing to offer. Actually, even United Russia does not look that different to them. And the question arises: 'Do they want to change one group of liberals for another?' And while we have grown used to talking about those small opposition parties as liberals, there is great deal of connection and continuity between these relics of the nineties and the powers that be today. The liberal opposition does not hate Putin so much because his rule is bad for the country, but because Putin's rule is not good enough for them. Which really means they are not part of the system headed by Putin.

Lipman was more pessimistic, arguing that the U.S. lacked leverage, since it wanted more from Russia than Russia needed from the West. While pushing her U.S. audience to identify what constituted the "or else" in American criticisms of Russian policy, Lipman warned that the debate over NATO expansion could eviscerate the bilateral relationship. "No matter how desperate Russia was for Western technology or approval," no Russian leadership could compromise on opposition to MAP. The conundrum, she underscored, was that "the U.S. has no constituency here," in a country where "the situation is not desperate." Positing that the opposition enjoyed, at most, around seven percent support, Lipman concluded that "your (U.S.) constituency is a few thousand, unpopular people," which was why "Western efforts to influence Russia are hopeless." While Lipman thought Medvedev's selection signified a desire to move away from "anti-West diversions," she acknowledged that the temptation would remain to play on the theme of the external enemy, despite the absence of any visceral hatred of the U.S. among average Russians.

While I mostly agree with what is written above, some things raise my eyebrows. What is a US constituency for instance? American constituency votes in the US Embassy, or in the local consulate. That's American constituency. What is really meant are pro-American cheerleaders from the ranks of the native population, but you can't put that into a diplomatic cable. 

Double Standard

I found this interesting quote on facebook...

Something to think about:

If you're a mother and can't provide for kids you produce, western governments give free food, money, medical, dental, phone, rent and even electric, BUT if you're a father and can't provide support, you go straight to jail and labeled 'dead-beat'.

Russian Speakers Bad; Ukrainian Speakers Serene

Alexander Motyl and Taras Kuzio have found a new way to vent their Russophobia...

The recipe is simple, you take an example of an intolerant Russian speaker, and contrast him with nice Ukrainian speakers. Or alternatively, you take legitimate defence of the Russian language, and then you fish for gruesome examples of Russian speaking intolerance. The intellectual merits of such endeavours are questionable, but they certainly do work as tools of propaganda.

First let us take a look at Alexander Motyl:

Not as bad as you might think. The vast majority of Ukrainian speakers are proficient in and tolerant of Russian; if and when speakers of Ukrainian encounter speakers of Russian, most are more than happy to hear Russian and even speak it. That is as true of Lviv as it is true of Kyiv and Donetsk.

In contrast, the vast majority of Russian speakers do not meet these conditions. Many are not proficient in Ukrainian; some are intolerant of Ukrainian (and consider it the language of animals); and, if and when speakers of Russian encounter speakers of Ukrainian, few are more than happy to hear Ukrainian and speak it. That is as true of Kyiv and Donetsk as it is true of Lviv.

The link to Russian speakers thinking that Ukrainian is a language of animals does not work, but it refers to an ignorant traffic officer being caught on camera saying that. This is one idiot, not many or absolutely not vast majority. One can also show example of tolerant Russian speakers and compare these with intolerant Ukrainian speakers (say like Yushchenko forcing Crimean schools to use Ukrainian textbooks), and sprinkle that with words like 'many' and 'vast majority.' The intellectual merits of this are self-evident, there aren't any.

And now Taras Kuzio, who tells us that so called Neo-Soviet nationalism, which in his opinion expresses itself in some imaginary prioritising of the Russian language, is more of a threat to human life than right-wing (read Nazi) Ukrainian nationalism:

Neo-Soviet nationalism is more of a threat to human life than right-wing Ukrainian nationalism exemplified by the Svoboda party. Two people have died in Ukraine from political violence, both at the hands of Russian nationalists. On May 8, 2000, composer Ihor Bilozir was murdered in Lviv and on April 17, 2009, Maksym Chaika, a 20-year old student, was murdered in Odesa.  

Now this is what I call going hard. We take a legitimate defence of Russian language which nowhere, at least in the Party of Regions case, approaches its prioritising, and we compare that with inexcusable actions of few idiots, such as was that which happened to Bilozir. For those who do not know, and you would not know from Kuzio's article, Bilozir was beaten up by two thugs for singing in Ukrainian. He later died of wounds sustained in the attack.

However, when one looks at the case of Maxym Chaika, one sees that this is not a great example of deadly Neo-Soviet nationalism to be honest. I thought the day when I will quote Open Democracy will never come but here it is:

I am only listing the anti-fascist victims of neo-nazi terror, not the victims of retaliation attacks. This is for a good reason. Despite the established stereotype that "neo-nazis and anti-fascists are one and the same thing", Russian, Belarussian and Ukrainian anti-fascists, young men and women of direct action, do not engage in murder.  They may rough their enemies up, but they don't kill. In this sense the murder of the Ukrainian neo-nazi Maxim Chaika in Odessa was the tragic result of neo-nazi actions.  15 neo-nazis attacked 5 anti-fascists, who naturally got out their knives. There were no international conspiracies, no intrigues by Russia or any external forces acting against Ukraine, as President Yushchenko unworthily tried to prove during his election campaign. The war between neo-nazis and their enemies goes on all over the world. Now it has affected Ukraine as well.

15 Nazi thugs picked a fight with 5 Antifa leaving one Nazi thug dead, and Yushchenko tried to twist this as some Russian intrigue and external forces acting against Ukraine. Kuzio continues with this unfounded diatribe, classifying the above as an expression of a deadly Neo-Soviet nationalism.

The intellectual merits of this are rather questionable, much like the fact that Kuzio applies a theory developed by a journalistic hack, and a proven plagiarist, Luke Harding, which the latter based on reading diplomatic rants on Wikileaks. 

The Party Of Regions Might Finally Live Up To Its Promises

I found this on inosmi...

The article at Deutsche Welle bears a totally, enormously, alarming title: 'New Language Law: 'End To Ukrainisation' Or 'Creeping Russification'', but the contents are not so epic. I do not think it warrants a full translation, and this is what I intend to do. 

The article opens with telling us that in Kiev these days you might ask for things in Ukrainian, but you are more likely to receive a reply in Russian. We have seen an example of this with FEMEN girls here on this blog recently. 20 years after independence, and following intensive attempts at Ukrainisation, people still prefer Russian as a medium of communication. This fact however is not reflected in Ukrainian law. One of the campaign promisses of the Party of Regions was to elevate the legal status of the Russian language, and now it seems they might live up to that:

Soon the Ukrainian parliament plans to elevate the status of the Russian language, fulfilling a promise which the Party of Regions made to its constituents several times. A law 'On Foundations Of Government Language Policy' developed by its members of parliament has received an expert evaluation from the Venice Commission, constitutive organ of the Council of Europe dealing with the questions of constitutional law, in late December of last year.  

According to the article, people from Bloc of Yuliya Tymoshenko think that the Party of Regions wants to de facto give Russian the status of a second government language. This alarming talk is reflected in the title of the Deutsche Welle article. But what the Party of Regions by all accounts attempts to do, is to elevate the status of the Russian language on regional level, that is to make the language official in regions where 10% of the population or more consider Russian (or any other language for that matter) to be their native language. In my opinion, the Russian language should be mentioned along side Russian in the Ukrainian constitution, but not even the largely Russian speaking Party of Regions is willing to acquiesce to that idea.

Artemiza-Tat'yana Chiska (this is a transliteration from Cyrilic as it appears in the article, her name might appear differently in Latin script reality) thinks that it is important to have a balance between defence of Ukrainian as the only government language and protection of languages of minorities. In my opinion the benchmark of 10% is too high, and works in favour of Russian mostly, and then Hungarian in Transcarpathia, Romanian in Bukovina, and Crimean Tatar in certain Crimean regions. Romanian and Bulgarian in the Odessa region will not be taken into account by the law as will the languages of other minorities be ignored. Therefore, the law does not do enough in terms of protecting minority languages.

Nevertheless, given the incopetence of current admistration, it is still a step in right direction.