Comments on: Putin, Russia And “Sovietization” http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2007/12/03/putin-russia-and-sovietization/ n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:07:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Eunomia » Colombia http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2007/12/03/putin-russia-and-sovietization/comment-page-1/#comment-12160 Eunomia » Colombia Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:12:26 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/12/03/putin-russia-and-sovietization/#comment-12160 [...] Speaking of Colombia, Michael Moynihan recently wrote what one might almost call an apology for Alvaro Uribe, which makes me wonder why certain democratically-elected allied leaders who engage in heavy-handed–but effective–tactics in attempts to impose order on a fairly lawless country receive his praise and other foreign elected leaders receive withering scorn as harbingers of “Sovietization.”  Uribe’s 80% approval rating is taken as proof of solid public support, while Putin’s old 70% approval ratings were either irrelevant or proof of dictatorship.  Apparently in Latin America, we must judge local political leaders on a “steep curve,” unless their name is Chavez, for whom the usual condemnations are appropriate, but on other continents different standards are applied.        [...] [...] Speaking of Colombia, Michael Moynihan recently wrote what one might almost call an apology for Alvaro Uribe, which makes me wonder why certain democratically-elected allied leaders who engage in heavy-handed–but effective–tactics in attempts to impose order on a fairly lawless country receive his praise and other foreign elected leaders receive withering scorn as harbingers of “Sovietization.”  Uribe’s 80% approval rating is taken as proof of solid public support, while Putin’s old 70% approval ratings were either irrelevant or proof of dictatorship.  Apparently in Latin America, we must judge local political leaders on a “steep curve,” unless their name is Chavez, for whom the usual condemnations are appropriate, but on other continents different standards are applied.        [...]

]]> By: Eunomia » The Russophobes’ Broken Record http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2007/12/03/putin-russia-and-sovietization/comment-page-1/#comment-8967 Eunomia » The Russophobes’ Broken Record Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:41:11 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/12/03/putin-russia-and-sovietization/#comment-8967 [...] Putin hasn’t chosen the route of autocracy, and people who keep using this word to describe the Russian government show that they haven’t a clue what autocracy is.  Autocrats don’t hand over power to successors, even hand-picked ones, and then settle for being prime minister.  Autocrats stay in power until they die or can hand over the reins to their offspring.  Autocrats also rule on their own, and not as part of an extensive bureaucratic and formally constitutional apparatus.  Yes, Putin is an authoritarian populist, not a liberal democrat, but we already knew that.  Talk of “the totalitarian fabric of the Soviet Union” is the sort of ludicrous American national paranoia that seems to be only too much in vogue these days.  It is an insult to the people who suffered under the actual totalitarianism of the USSR to compare what is happening today to that. [...] [...] Putin hasn’t chosen the route of autocracy, and people who keep using this word to describe the Russian government show that they haven’t a clue what autocracy is.  Autocrats don’t hand over power to successors, even hand-picked ones, and then settle for being prime minister.  Autocrats stay in power until they die or can hand over the reins to their offspring.  Autocrats also rule on their own, and not as part of an extensive bureaucratic and formally constitutional apparatus.  Yes, Putin is an authoritarian populist, not a liberal democrat, but we already knew that.  Talk of “the totalitarian fabric of the Soviet Union” is the sort of ludicrous American national paranoia that seems to be only too much in vogue these days.  It is an insult to the people who suffered under the actual totalitarianism of the USSR to compare what is happening today to that. [...]

]]> By: djplondon http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2007/12/03/putin-russia-and-sovietization/comment-page-1/#comment-8251 djplondon Tue, 04 Dec 2007 02:27:24 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/12/03/putin-russia-and-sovietization/#comment-8251 I'm reminded of how Soviet citizens were always taught that the country most likely to return to fascism in the post-war years and follow Hitler's example of threatening the world's security was, of course, the United States. This had the considerable virtue of being both in line with Soviet propaganda needs and containing seeds of truth (in that it was, at least, possible). These fears were, naturally, nourished by the West's adventures in the Balkans and the Near Abroad and even more so by the, to Russian eyes, unbelievably arrogant campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Was the US, post Cold-War, finally going over the edge? What's ironic is that the US instinct is, largely, to frantically run about trying to spot the next Hitler at birth. Will it be Iraq? Iran? Venezuela? (Ha!) Russia is a good candidate, but has the unfortunate quality, that, like China, it cannot actually be militarily defeated. US politicians have learnt from the cradle that they must, on all accounts, not become the next Chamberlain, but must be an even more heroic Churchill, warning the world about the dangers of Mr X for years before he becomes truly dangerous. It is unfortunate that these actions look to the rest of the World either imperially calculating or insanely paranoid. Munich has been such a conventional rallying cry for so long that it seems the lessons of Versailles and an understanding of the consequences of humiliation have been forgotten in the US, even though they are far more applicable to the current time, whether in dealings with the Russians or the Muslim world. The problem is, you never know if you're dealing with Versailles or Munich, whether exerting more pressure will save the day or cause catastrophe. Foreign policy is hard and unpredictable. Who knew? But by any historical standard, yes Daniel, we'll take Putin's Russia. And maybe there isn't a new Hitler in Venezuela. Maybe he'll not actually rig elections (I admit I was surprised). Maybe all Russians want is a little respect (although I have Latvian friends who will always be nervous about such sentiments). Maybe America needs to calm down. It's not easy being a democratic, media-driven hegemon, with careers to be made whipping people up into a frenzy. Meanwhile all our Russian friends can do little apart from hope long-held fears of an unstoppable fascist US are dampened by the next administration... and sell us all oil of course. I’m reminded of how Soviet citizens were always taught that the country most likely to return to fascism in the post-war years and follow Hitler’s example of threatening the world’s security was, of course, the United States. This had the considerable virtue of being both in line with Soviet propaganda needs and containing seeds of truth (in that it was, at least, possible).

These fears were, naturally, nourished by the West’s adventures in the Balkans and the Near Abroad and even more so by the, to Russian eyes, unbelievably arrogant campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Was the US, post Cold-War, finally going over the edge?

What’s ironic is that the US instinct is, largely, to frantically run about trying to spot the next Hitler at birth. Will it be Iraq? Iran? Venezuela? (Ha!) Russia is a good candidate, but has the unfortunate quality, that, like China, it cannot actually be militarily defeated. US politicians have learnt from the cradle that they must, on all accounts, not become the next Chamberlain, but must be an even more heroic Churchill, warning the world about the dangers of Mr X for years before he becomes truly dangerous. It is unfortunate that these actions look to the rest of the World either imperially calculating or insanely paranoid.

Munich has been such a conventional rallying cry for so long that it seems the lessons of Versailles and an understanding of the consequences of humiliation have been forgotten in the US, even though they are far more applicable to the current time, whether in dealings with the Russians or the Muslim world.

The problem is, you never know if you’re dealing with Versailles or Munich, whether exerting more pressure will save the day or cause catastrophe. Foreign policy is hard and unpredictable. Who knew? But by any historical standard, yes Daniel, we’ll take Putin’s Russia.

And maybe there isn’t a new Hitler in Venezuela. Maybe he’ll not actually rig elections (I admit I was surprised). Maybe all Russians want is a little respect (although I have Latvian friends who will always be nervous about such sentiments). Maybe America needs to calm down. It’s not easy being a democratic, media-driven hegemon, with careers to be made whipping people up into a frenzy.

Meanwhile all our Russian friends can do little apart from hope long-held fears of an unstoppable fascist US are dampened by the next administration… and sell us all oil of course.

]]>