Solzhenitsyn and history

Everyone by now is familiar with the work of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. But for decades we, children in the Soviet Union, were growing up not having the opportunity to even know about him, or even have a chance to get his printed work. Then in the early 90s his famous 'Archipelago Gulag' was published and shook the conscience of many in our former country. The West in contrast had long been familiar with his work.

Today Vladimyr Putin has made a call to encourage more coverage of Solzhenitsyn's work in schools for children. This is highly complimentary on part of Putin and dispels many attacks by opponents. He reportedly said, "это человек, который вместе с народом пережил великую трагедию и репрессии, своей жизнью и работой А.Солженицын сделал обществу значимую прививку против любых видов тирании". ("this is a man who lived through a great tragedy and repression along with his nation and whose life and work has significantly inoculated the society against all types of oppressions." translated by NM). here

Enough said. If only this acknowledgement came a few decades earlier...

The painting above, Burlaki, is by Ilya Repin, 1873. It does give a very good idea of the reality behind Archipelago Gulag even though it reflects a different historic time period. I can imagine how this painting could have inspired Solzhenitsyn...

Meeting of influential prime-ministers

Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy. It is the butter to the bread of politics. The two sister states, Russia and Ukraine, are scheduling a crucial meeting between the two prime-ministers, Vladimyr Putin and Yulia Timoshenko. This is in the background of very complicated and tense relations between Russia and Ukraine... What is to be expected? Well, analysts are seeking not simple diplomatic overtures, but real political solutions from these levered and highly shrewd politicians. And of course, there must be commitment on both sides to effectuate the policies stated at meetings in a friendly atmosphere...

(On a different note, it is really nice to see a woman politician in a dress and with a fancy hairstyle, having had the courage not to limit herself to the trivial suit worn by both sexes... Unfortunatley, there is this pressure on women politicians and lawyers to look like men and almost lose touch of femininity... Whenever Hillary Clinton displayed her female charm, she was attacked and laughed at...)

For more here.

Rule of law and Medvedev

The West jumped to criticize Medvedev as the 'installed' and handpicked President, successor of Putin. But so far he is on the right track, in my eyes. In his speech at the 85th anniversary of the creation of the Russian Supreme Court he has urged to develop among other things the independence and accountability of the judiciary. As he has said, 'It is the quality of the work of the judiciary that defines the relationship of the citizens to the state and law.' Since the rule of law is a crucial attribute of any society, corruption in the judiciary is absolutely unacceptable. He spoke about the process of selection of judges, the delay and congestion of the judicial process, overall quality of judiciary. In addition, he stressed on increasing the means for discipline for violation of judicial ethics. Quality, accountability of the judiciary and improved access of the citizenry to the court system were the themes of his speech. For the full speech.

This is a continuation of Putin's big agenda against corruption in the government. His launch against the practices long-settled during the Soviet Union years was perhaps the biggest contribution to his country...

Russian elections 2008

Vladimyr Putin, the most influential person in Russia today, on behalf of his party, United Russia (Edinaya Rossiya), has endorsed Dmitriy Medvedev as his successor to Presidency. Putin also reminded people that this is the time not to praise for past achievements, but outline what challenges are still ahead. For that job, he strongly supports Medvedev. (here)

Born on September 14, 1965, in St. Petersburg, Medvedev is a lawyer and a businessman, who has been very close with Putin since he became President. Given the popularity of Putin and his influence on the Russian public, the polls have shown that the vast majority of Russians (over 70%) are ready to vote for Medvedev just because of Putin's endorsement (here).

In his speech after the endorsement by Putin, Medvedev spoke about improving the infrastructure and the world leadership of Russia with the help of Putin. In fact, Putin would be a Prime-Minister, as the head of the Parliament, if Medvedev becomes the President. Basically, Medvedev would probably be the shadow of Putin who will continue influencing Russian politics in all spheres.

Is there a viable opposition to Putin and Medvedev? While there is opposition, since Putin and Medvedev follow the general spirit of policies that the Russian population has been in favor of, there is really no chance for the opponents to garner as much support or popularity.

You may ask, what is the main reason that Russians love Putin and disliked either Gorbachev or Yeltsin? Competence and repairing the fallen image of Russia. After all, Yeltsin was an alcoholic and deeply incompetent, while Gorbachev proved to be just as incompetent in economic policies.

Balance of Powers and World Order

Thinking about the 2008 and the increasing destabilization of the world order, I would like to bring to your attention portions of Vladimyr Putin's speech at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy held last year (here). You can judge for yourselves. No extensive comments are needed here. One phrase-- balance of powers-- says it all:

I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation....

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this?...

I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.
And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue. Especially since the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly – changes in light of the dynamic development in a whole number of countries and regions....

I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees?...

The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs. But we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice – one that was also made by our people, the people of Russia – a choice in favour of democracy, freedom, openness and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family.
And now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us – these walls may be virtual but they are nevertheless dividing, ones that cut through our continent. And is it possible that we will once again require many years and decades, as well as several generations of politicians, to dissemble and dismantle these new walls?...

And there is still one more important theme that directly affects global security. Today many talk about the struggle against poverty. What is actually happening in this sphere? On the one hand, financial resources are allocated for programmes to help the world’s poorest countries – and at times substantial financial resources. But to be honest -- and many here also know this – linked with the development of that same donor country’s companies. And on the other hand, developed countries simultaneously keep their agricultural subsidies and limit some countries’ access to high-tech products.

And let’s say things as they are – one hand distributes charitable help and the other hand not only preserves economic backwardness but also reaps the profits thereof. The increasing social tension in depressed regions inevitably results in the growth of radicalism, extremism, feeds terrorism and local conflicts. And if all this happens in, shall we say, a region such as the Middle East where there is increasingly the sense that the world at large is unfair, then there is the risk of global destabilisation.

I fear that the new next President of the US will continue pushing the same agenda of the Bush Administration in foreign policy-- world order under one single leader... As long as this agenda is pushed, the world will continue to be an unstable place... and peace will only be a far-fetched dream...

Gorbachev... Yeltsin... Putin

The three Russian leaders were destined to leave a lasting mark on the history of Russia, each his own way. Mikhail Gorbachev was to let the gin out of the bottle and make a courageous U-turn for Russia towards political and economic reform. When he came to power, the Soviet Union was in deep trouble, economically, sociologically and internationally. An incorrigible idealist and an admirer of the West, Gorbachev committed to reform. While his heart was in the right place, the course he took was not rational. You cannot destroy and build a new house overnight. His policies therefore were simply suicidal for his political life and for the country. The 'shock therapy,' the uncontrollable and unattended privatization were going to be a Tsunami for the Soviet way of life. A comparison of his policies with those of the gradualist Deng Xiaoping (1904-1997) in China reveals how systematically wrong was Gorbachev. China was not in a better shape after the insanity of Mao Zedong, when Deng Xiaoping took over. Today China's economic boom is a product of the clever policies of this man. (For more on this read China expert, Richard Baum's "Burying Mao.")


Therefore, Gorbachev spelled the seeds of disaster for Russia, while he must be given serious credit for commitment to bring needed reform to the USSR and the end of the Cold War. Yeltsin was even more incompetent. While he was also an idealist like Gorbachev, he had no clear vision of how to forge the reforms in Russia. During his time, Russia went into a deeper depression, economically, politically and sociologically. He gave free reign to the oligarchs and oil magnets, who plundered the country's natural resources and pocketed the money without paying to the treasury. The so-called "new Russians" acting as businessmen were allowed to commit the worst financial crimes with impunity. The complete absence of social services and unregulated free markets created an abyss, a huge gap between the rich and the poor, unseen of in the former Soviet Union. The poverty in Russia during Yeltsin can be compared only to that of during the Tsars. Organized crime was infiltrating all segments of the government and bribery, worse than it was during the Soviet Union was commonplace. I know this from firsthand experience because I lived in Russia during this period.

While Yeltsin should not be held responsible for all these problems, his incompetent presidency was a scourge for Russia. His health and alcoholism contributed to it. Idealism of Gorbachev and Yeltsin was not paying the dividends because it was not rational. Bill Clinton also was an idealist, but he was very rational and therefore, successful. Of course, Bill Clinton did not inherit a post-Communist country, to give some break to Yeltsin.


Russia was sinking like a big bag of stones thrown into the river when Putin took over. In contrast with the irresponsible idealism of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, this was a realist and pragmatist. Beginning from his serious demeanor and posture and ending with his policies, finally this was a man that rolled up his sleeves and went to work. His unquestionable popularity in Russia during his entire presidency associate his figure with that of Peter the Great (1672-1725)-- not a bad accomplishment, while of course, Peter the Great was a benevolent despot, similar to Napoleon.

He began with an anti-corruption campaign-- his biggest contribution to the country. Watching Russian TV, I am amazed with the number of prosecutions commenced for bribery on a daily basis. Bribery at all levels of government bureacracy was the biggest plague in the entire history of the Soviet Union. Putin's commitment to fight it is very courageous, because behind this corruption is the Russian mafia. Second, he went immediately after people like Berezovsky and Khadorkovsky. His goal was not to exterminate the big business. He understood Russia's strategic interests in oil. But he forced them to pay the taxes that they had ignored to pay for a decade. The 'stick' was nationalization of industries. Putin did that, to the great dismay of capitalists in the West and was attacked as anti-democratic. Perhaps, people will remember Roosevelt's steps taken to take the country out of the Great Depression. Putin had no choice.

Internationally, just like Peter the Great, Putin sought European integration. While Yeltsin also should be given credit for this, Putin continued these efforts strongly than ever. He played a major role in abolishing the death penalty. Today Russia does not impose the death penalty even for terrorists. Russia surrendered to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, which now is flooded by cases from Russia. In the aftermath of the 9-11 Putin offered his genuine help to the US to combat terrorism, unaccepted by the over-confidence of the Bush administration, who chose unilateralism instead. The war in Iraq undermined the relationship between Russia and the US, because Russia's contracts in Iraq dissolved as a result.

The US plans for the Missile Defense Shield and decision to place strategic nuclear rockets in Eastern Europe further challenged Russia as a world power. Putin who set out to take his country out of the psychological depression of the 90s, has taken steps to countermand the US expansion and superiority in the world. His partnership with China through the development of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has many realpolitik goals.

Russia prior to Putin reminded of the Germany in post-World War I. It felt humiliated. Nationalism bordering to Nazism was flourishing. People like Vladimyr Zhirinovsky were yelling the wipe out of Jews and of all non-Russians (very similar to Ahmadinejad of Iran). While nationalism is still very prominent in Russia, Putin was able to bring stability to the country by his calm and rational behavior as a politician. Moreover, his intelligence level is much higher than that of any Soviet leader. It should be noted that most Soviet leaders were never to the liking of the people. Putin was the first in many decades to win the hearts and minds of people.

There were many downsides to the institution of stability. It came at the expense of the democracy we portray in the West. Freedom to speak your mind and uncensored criticism are still not accepted well in Russia. The Russian mafia is still strong, while is under control. Chechnya, while stabilized during Putin, still is breaking the record of human rights violations. There is still much work to be done to develop the technology, industries and social services. Also the strong leadership of Putin has created some aura of the cult of personality, very similar to Maoism or Stalinism. But Putin's figure is much akin to Peter the Great in the minds of people, not ever to Stalin-- a good sign.

Putin was able to repair the fallen image of Russia, which is a double edged sword. On one hand, it recreates the balance of powers, absent from the world arena in these couple of decades. We saw how many troubles we have had because of the unipolarism. Islamic fundamentalism was an outspring of that. On the other hand, if Russia asserts itself as a world power like it used to, we will probably be very close to the brink of another Cold War. Competition between superpowers with nuclear weapons is a Hobbesian tragedy...

With all his shortcomings and failures, Putin stopped the sinking of Russia and did many positive things for his country, hence his popularity. The opposite is true of Bush, who in fact caused the sinking of the US... Very sad, given the differences between a post-Communist struggling country inherited by Putin and a strong functioning democracy with an excellent economy inherited by Bush...

Keynes and Globalization

Adam Smith (1723-1790), the mastermind behind the so-called Invisible Hand, wrote:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual value of society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.

Smith was wise in pointing to the inner needs of a human being and the vitality of creation of incentives. Unfortunately, as we know, the invisible hand did not do what Smith portrayed and greed in human society blocked the spillover effect of which he spoke about. The Great Depression in the beginning of the 20th century was largely a result of the failure of the Invisible Hand.

Therefore, the theories of John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)(above) came as a revelation and a saviour. In contrast with Smith, Keynes propagated interventionist policies by government that would control and regulate the free markets. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was very much under the influence of Keynes when devised the plan to take the country out of the Depression. Of course, as usually crude capitalism is synonymous with free markets and state intervention is always attacked as socialism... Moreover, nationalization of industries as one of the measures of the state to regulate the capricious markets and big business is assailed as anti-democratic. Putin's economic policies in Russia have been coined precisely that, while he is very much like Roosevelt in economic affairs...

Today it is virtually unassailable that domestic markets must be regulated. But the problem is how in this globalized world we can also learn to regulate international markets, so that international accumulation of wealth can be distributed evenly among nations... Since no nation has the incentive to do that (just like the individual businessman, only seeking his self-gain), this is the task of international organizations. But just like governments purporting to regulate markets and lobbied by big business, international organizations cannot be perfect and are often lobbied by stronger nation-states...