Stocks and News
Home | Week in Review Process | Terms of Use | About UsContact Us
   Articles Go Fund Me All-Species List Hot Spots Go Fund Me
Week in Review   |  Bar Chat    |  Hot Spots    |   Dr. Bortrum    |   Wall St. History
Stock and News: Hot Spots
  Search Our Archives: 
 

 

Hot Spots

https://www.gofundme.com/s3h2w8

AddThis Feed Button
   

03/17/2005

Putin: One Man's Opinion

Alexey K. Pushkov, a professor at the Moscow State Institute of
International Relations, wrote a piece titled “Putin and His
Enemies” for the Winter 2004/05 edition of The National
Interest. Mr. Pushkov is not as hard on Putin as I have been over
the past few years, but he presents a summary of some of the
issues facing the nation.

To understand today you have to take a step back to the Yeltsin
era. The election of 1996 – the one where we later learned
Yeltsin had suffered at least one heart attack during the campaign
and where he appeared to be a bit soused on more than one
occasion – was manipulated to such a degree that a majority of
Russians believed democracy “Yeltsin-style” meant freedom to
loot, commit crimes and be corrupt. And as Pushkov notes, the
1998 collapse of the ruble was “a clear verdict on Yeltsin’s
economic and social policies.”

“Most Russians believe that Yeltsin’s pseudo-democracy has
brought only turmoil, decay and corruption to Russia. And while
opinion polls indicate that most Russians value basic political
freedoms, they do not want to live under a faux-liberal regime
dominated by big money. For the majority of Russians, what is
most important is for Russia to become an economically
developed, rich and powerful country.”

Yeltsin’s style of democracy became more a hindrance than an
instrument of Russia’s revival.

As for Putin, Mr. Pushkov writes that Vladimir seems to be
inspired by a leader such as Peter the Great or Charles de Gaulle,
rather than Pinochet; the latter having come to power through a
bloody coup while remaining a dictator for virtually his entire
tenure. Pushkov:

“Certainly, there is a more pronounced penchant for liberal
economic and social reforms in this system of rule than for the
development of democratic institutions.”

Putin’s rule is characterized by little in the way of separation of
powers. Both the Duma and the Federation Council are nothing
more than rubber stamps, and I’d add a public opinion poll I saw
this week in the Moscow Times has the Duma’s popularity rating
at an all-time low (since this particular survey was instituted in
1995).

Instead, Pushkov compares the swing from Yeltsin to Putin as
one from “reform” to “restoration.” “In Boris Yeltsin’s two
terms, the pendulum swung from the Left – the communist
command-and-control system – to the Right – marked by the
breakdown of state regulation over the economy and the rule of
oligarchs and right-wing liberals .

“Under Putin the pendulum swung to stronger state controls
(for instance, against tax evasion), to new limits on the political
influence of big money and to a centralization of power in
Moscow .The point at which the pendulum stopped can be
described as moderate authoritarian rule politically and limited
market liberalism economically.”

The most vocal opposition to Putin these days comes primarily
from those who benefited most under Yeltsin. After all, this
group includes the likes of Boris Berezovsky who can hardly be
called a democracy advocate. Pushkov notes, “The real goal of
(those opposing the current state of affairs) is not to bring
democracy to Russia but to use democracy as a slogan against
Putin.”

Of course economically, Putin is the beneficiary of high oil and
gas prices which have helped propel growth at about a 6-7% pace
the last few years. Russia’s internal monetary position has never
been brighter and it’s not only servicing its foreign debt but it’s
paying it off. Russia’s gold and foreign currency reserves are for
the first time well in excess of $100 billion.

Pushkov makes far too little of the challenges facing Putin to suit
my tastes, however. “He has to make the state bureaucracy – and
especially the security services – much more effective, and this
has become an overriding task after the terrorist attack on a
school in Beslan. The unresolved issue of Chechnya also poses a
major challenge. Unless Putin finds a way to crush armed
separatism in Chechnya, terrorist activity will not stop and will
subvert Putin’s rule.”

Well, I don’t know if ‘crushing’ the terrorists in Chechnya is
necessarily the total solution here since there is a legitimate
political element amongst some of the opposition and Russia’s
own human rights violations in Chechnya are as awful as
anything the world has witnessed the past few decades. Pushkov
also says little about the state of international relations and zero
about the lack of security involving Russia’s WMD. Instead, the
professor focuses on the economy.

“The key battle Putin has to fight is economic modernization.”

Pushkov adds Putin’s future success will depend on three key
factors: “his capacity to assure economic growth, to limit
terrorist attacks and to preserve social stability while pursuing
liberal reforms. If he displays such a capacity, the ‘Right-Left’
opposition composed of Communists and oligarchs will hardly
be a danger to him. If he does not, then political and social
stability, and therefore his presidency, may be shattered.”

Pushkov perhaps makes his strongest point in describing the
growing anti-Western sentiment among the Russian people.
While the West played up to Yeltsin’s seeming democracy, the
people simply saw the large-scale looting of the country. Author
/ reporter Paul Klebnikov, who was murdered this year in
Moscow, wrote in his book “Boris Berezovsky: The Godfather of
the Kremlin”:

“The Yeltsin clan and friendly businessmen conserved power,
but they ruled over a bankrupt state and an impoverished
population. It was supposed that the young democrats would
bring order to Russia, introduce a new legal system and give a
green light to the market economy. Instead they headed a regime
that turned out to be one of the most corrupt in the history of
mankind.”

Pushkov:

“So, when (the likes of) Richard Holbrooke calls for support for
those they term ‘reformers,’ they seemingly fail to understand
that this is a call for support for those people who are considered
by most Russians to be directly responsible for its recent
degradation .

“So those in the United States who call for the next
administration to administer a dose of ‘tough love’ to Russia
should ponder the consequences of such a policy line. Does the
United States want to deal with a country that can be a partner in
the fight against world terrorism and in the solution of complex
regional issues threatening world security – or does it prefer to
antagonize Russia by engaging in an anti-Putin crusade with
Boris Berezovsky, Chechen separatists, some disaffected
oligarchs and marginal political circles?”

Pushkov concludes:

“Russia is still struggling with the dramatic legacy of its recent
and not so recent past. Democracy in Russia is far from
established. The Russian pendulum needs some more time to
reach a balanced and stable position. In order to reach such a
balance the country needs political stability and firm leadership.
Taking into account the turmoil of the 1990s, authoritarian
modernization seems in those conditions not so much Putin’s
choice, but the only way to proceed. A number of countries that
faced this challenge moved along similar lines. They are now
respected and established democracies. If Russia follows the
same path with the same result – it will be not only in its own
interest, but in the interest of the world as well.”

Hott Spotts will return March 24.

Brian Trumbore


AddThis Feed Button

 

-03/17/2005-      
Web Epoch NJ Web Design  |  (c) Copyright 2016 StocksandNews.com, LLC.

Hot Spots

03/17/2005

Putin: One Man's Opinion

Alexey K. Pushkov, a professor at the Moscow State Institute of
International Relations, wrote a piece titled “Putin and His
Enemies” for the Winter 2004/05 edition of The National
Interest. Mr. Pushkov is not as hard on Putin as I have been over
the past few years, but he presents a summary of some of the
issues facing the nation.

To understand today you have to take a step back to the Yeltsin
era. The election of 1996 – the one where we later learned
Yeltsin had suffered at least one heart attack during the campaign
and where he appeared to be a bit soused on more than one
occasion – was manipulated to such a degree that a majority of
Russians believed democracy “Yeltsin-style” meant freedom to
loot, commit crimes and be corrupt. And as Pushkov notes, the
1998 collapse of the ruble was “a clear verdict on Yeltsin’s
economic and social policies.”

“Most Russians believe that Yeltsin’s pseudo-democracy has
brought only turmoil, decay and corruption to Russia. And while
opinion polls indicate that most Russians value basic political
freedoms, they do not want to live under a faux-liberal regime
dominated by big money. For the majority of Russians, what is
most important is for Russia to become an economically
developed, rich and powerful country.”

Yeltsin’s style of democracy became more a hindrance than an
instrument of Russia’s revival.

As for Putin, Mr. Pushkov writes that Vladimir seems to be
inspired by a leader such as Peter the Great or Charles de Gaulle,
rather than Pinochet; the latter having come to power through a
bloody coup while remaining a dictator for virtually his entire
tenure. Pushkov:

“Certainly, there is a more pronounced penchant for liberal
economic and social reforms in this system of rule than for the
development of democratic institutions.”

Putin’s rule is characterized by little in the way of separation of
powers. Both the Duma and the Federation Council are nothing
more than rubber stamps, and I’d add a public opinion poll I saw
this week in the Moscow Times has the Duma’s popularity rating
at an all-time low (since this particular survey was instituted in
1995).

Instead, Pushkov compares the swing from Yeltsin to Putin as
one from “reform” to “restoration.” “In Boris Yeltsin’s two
terms, the pendulum swung from the Left – the communist
command-and-control system – to the Right – marked by the
breakdown of state regulation over the economy and the rule of
oligarchs and right-wing liberals .

“Under Putin the pendulum swung to stronger state controls
(for instance, against tax evasion), to new limits on the political
influence of big money and to a centralization of power in
Moscow .The point at which the pendulum stopped can be
described as moderate authoritarian rule politically and limited
market liberalism economically.”

The most vocal opposition to Putin these days comes primarily
from those who benefited most under Yeltsin. After all, this
group includes the likes of Boris Berezovsky who can hardly be
called a democracy advocate. Pushkov notes, “The real goal of
(those opposing the current state of affairs) is not to bring
democracy to Russia but to use democracy as a slogan against
Putin.”

Of course economically, Putin is the beneficiary of high oil and
gas prices which have helped propel growth at about a 6-7% pace
the last few years. Russia’s internal monetary position has never
been brighter and it’s not only servicing its foreign debt but it’s
paying it off. Russia’s gold and foreign currency reserves are for
the first time well in excess of $100 billion.

Pushkov makes far too little of the challenges facing Putin to suit
my tastes, however. “He has to make the state bureaucracy – and
especially the security services – much more effective, and this
has become an overriding task after the terrorist attack on a
school in Beslan. The unresolved issue of Chechnya also poses a
major challenge. Unless Putin finds a way to crush armed
separatism in Chechnya, terrorist activity will not stop and will
subvert Putin’s rule.”

Well, I don’t know if ‘crushing’ the terrorists in Chechnya is
necessarily the total solution here since there is a legitimate
political element amongst some of the opposition and Russia’s
own human rights violations in Chechnya are as awful as
anything the world has witnessed the past few decades. Pushkov
also says little about the state of international relations and zero
about the lack of security involving Russia’s WMD. Instead, the
professor focuses on the economy.

“The key battle Putin has to fight is economic modernization.”

Pushkov adds Putin’s future success will depend on three key
factors: “his capacity to assure economic growth, to limit
terrorist attacks and to preserve social stability while pursuing
liberal reforms. If he displays such a capacity, the ‘Right-Left’
opposition composed of Communists and oligarchs will hardly
be a danger to him. If he does not, then political and social
stability, and therefore his presidency, may be shattered.”

Pushkov perhaps makes his strongest point in describing the
growing anti-Western sentiment among the Russian people.
While the West played up to Yeltsin’s seeming democracy, the
people simply saw the large-scale looting of the country. Author
/ reporter Paul Klebnikov, who was murdered this year in
Moscow, wrote in his book “Boris Berezovsky: The Godfather of
the Kremlin”:

“The Yeltsin clan and friendly businessmen conserved power,
but they ruled over a bankrupt state and an impoverished
population. It was supposed that the young democrats would
bring order to Russia, introduce a new legal system and give a
green light to the market economy. Instead they headed a regime
that turned out to be one of the most corrupt in the history of
mankind.”

Pushkov:

“So, when (the likes of) Richard Holbrooke calls for support for
those they term ‘reformers,’ they seemingly fail to understand
that this is a call for support for those people who are considered
by most Russians to be directly responsible for its recent
degradation .

“So those in the United States who call for the next
administration to administer a dose of ‘tough love’ to Russia
should ponder the consequences of such a policy line. Does the
United States want to deal with a country that can be a partner in
the fight against world terrorism and in the solution of complex
regional issues threatening world security – or does it prefer to
antagonize Russia by engaging in an anti-Putin crusade with
Boris Berezovsky, Chechen separatists, some disaffected
oligarchs and marginal political circles?”

Pushkov concludes:

“Russia is still struggling with the dramatic legacy of its recent
and not so recent past. Democracy in Russia is far from
established. The Russian pendulum needs some more time to
reach a balanced and stable position. In order to reach such a
balance the country needs political stability and firm leadership.
Taking into account the turmoil of the 1990s, authoritarian
modernization seems in those conditions not so much Putin’s
choice, but the only way to proceed. A number of countries that
faced this challenge moved along similar lines. They are now
respected and established democracies. If Russia follows the
same path with the same result – it will be not only in its own
interest, but in the interest of the world as well.”

Hott Spotts will return March 24.

Brian Trumbore