Empires and Nations

Ecole Doctorale Sciences Po in Paris is hosting an international law conference in July 2008 titled 'Empires and Nations.' (here)
The conference will focus not only on theoretical and philosophical approaches, but also on specific case studies.

What is the difference between an empire and a nation? How a nation can metamorphose into an empire? What are the characteristics of each? We had many empires in the world history. The Roman empire, Persian empire, Chinese empire come to mind. Any nation that develops a desire to expand and dominate over the rest of the world can be classified as an empire. Thus, the English monarchy with its numerous colonies was also an empire. Napoleon's France was an empire. Perhaps, today the US can also be classified as an empire, because it is in search for global hegemony. Of course, there are different types of empires, some more benevolent than others. But the major difference between a nation and an empire is that, the latter has a tendency of reaching towards many nations and embracing them into its sphere of influence. Thus, an empire is more heterogeneous and culturally pluralistic, whereas a nation, while still composed of ethnic minorities, is less heterogeneous.

The case study of the Soviet Union is definitely a strong reference-point. Is an empire necessarily anti-democratic because of its tendency to center on a majority group to the detriment of smaller groups? Does heterogeneity necessarily imply tolerance? In the Soviet Union there were many nations with widely diverse religions, cultures, ethnicities. It was centered on the Russian nationality to the diminution of other nations, that were smaller in numbers. It was a vastly heterogeneous empire, and it also tried to be tolerant with regard to nationhood. In fact, due to the Communist ideology nationhood was suppressed at all costs. Communism was an overarching ideology that took priority over everything else, nationality, ethnicity, etc. All the slogans of Communism were international: 'workers of all countries unite!' (Proletarii vsekh stran, soedinyaytes!) Religion was suppressed too and was perceived to be antithetical to education. So, empires tend to be more transnational. But a nation that is not an empire, once crystallized in identity and structure, is very conducive to ultra-sensitive nationalism and intolerance.

One thing should be remembered, however, when a nation tries to project its nationhood over others and dictates its will over others, thereby turning into an empire, it is by its very essence nationalistic, because it assumes that it is superior over others and is therefore destined to rule over others. That is why, Napoleon, Caesar, Alexander the Great were cosmopolitan in that they tried to create a unified empire out of all nations and countries in the world. Yet they also were very nationalistic because they envisioned their nation as dominating over others.

Maybe it is really about the package rather than the contents. Perhaps, an empire is a design, a facade of a building structure that is called a 'nation.' An empire is simply a highly ambitious nation that is capable of materializing its ambitions at many costs to itself and the world.

(Octavius Caesar Augustus above ruled over Rome from 27 BC to 14 AD.)

December 7, 1988

It was perhaps the most terrible day in my life and the lives of many other Armenians. I was 10 years old, growing up in my native town, Leninakan, (a city woefully named after Lenin with -akan translated as -ville, now Gyumri, its historic name) in Armenia. We lived in a nicely-furnished brand new apartment in a new 12-story building structure, on the 4th floor. It was winter. The morning was not very different from others. But on that day my schedule was a bit different because I had a scheduled examination for piano at music school. Usually my classes at school started in the afternoon, but on this day because of my exam at music school I had to leave home in the morning (to my greatest fortune). As I was walking to the car with my father (he was going to take me to school), I noticed the unusually heavy fog-- could not see two feet ahead; and the loud scowl/whining of dogs at a distance. We lived in the outskirts of the city and we had a lot of dogs running loose. On that morning they were not barking, but crying like wolves. I asked my father in alarm, ‘Dad, why are the dogs crying?’ He said, ‘I don’t know, kid.’ I sensed something really bad.

Then at about 11:41am I was standing in front of the examination room with my music teacher waiting for my turn with other students and teachers. As we were standing like that, all of a sudden, it felt like an invisible hand grabbed our building and started shaking it from right to left with unimaginable strength. We were on the 4th floor and we almost fell on one another and had to grab onto one another to keep from falling. My first thought that moment was that this was the nuclear war and it was the beginning of the end of the world. We were still under the fear of the Cold War and nuclear warfare. As some kids started crying, I was frozen from fear and could not even open my mouth. I was simply speechless and could not even move. A few moments later, someone yelled, ‘run out of the building.’ I don’t know, how I was grabbed by my teacher and pushed out, because my feet were not moving. I don’t even know how I went down the stairs, and how I found myself outside in the street. In the street it was a different world-- the buildings were in ruins and people were screaming in panic holding on to each other because the waves of the earthquake were still ongoing. I only know that I was looking at my music school with horror, wondering when it was going to go down like the other buildings. But it did not and I could not believe that I had just escaped narrow death.

I was standing and trembling from fear and the cold of the winter morning without a coat, not able to move as my older cousin came, hugged me and dragged me with her. I still could not walk from fear. She was basically almost dragging me. As we were walking down the streets, looking for my parents and our relatives, we witnessed a real tragedy. There was rare a building left standing or intact. People were wounded, or screaming, doing strange things. Women were crying. Men were crying too, which was unusual. I never saw so many men crying in my life. We could also hear people yelling from inside of the destroyed buildings. They were slowly dying from wounds, heavy stones on top of them, fire or lack of oxygen. We could also hear some loud noise coming from the crust of the earth. It seemed, the world was coming to its end.


The biggest relief came when I saw my parents and my sisters alive. Since everyone was crying, yelling and not able to find their missing family members, when I saw my family all around me, the whole world was mine. We found out that our whole building structure collapsed the very first moment of the earthquake and if anyone of us had been at home, no one would have escaped. Nobody who was at home in our building escaped death. It was some miracle that we all survived.

How many people died in that earthquake is hard to estimate. There were two other major cities struck by it. But all we know, there was rarely a building left standing in my city and there was rarely a family who did not lose a member, at least a close relative. We all survived, but lost some close relatives and many friends.

That night I remember how we all were gathered around the fire to spend the cold winter night outside in the street. We were told not to get into structures for fear that another earthquake may hit. I was clinging to my father and screaming, grabbing his hand, because I was still in great fear.

The next day of course, my parents had us evacuated to another city, so that we would not witness all of the horrors of the earthquake. The aftermath was just as bad, because our city and the others hit were trying to get the people out of destroyed buildings. Some people survived, most did not make it.

From that day on, most of everything else in the world I wanted peace for the well-being of all children. Because in that shaking building clinging to my teacher, I thought it was the beginning of the War.

I also started believing in animals and their ability to predict natural disasters. The dogs whining and crying in the morning—so extraordinary that I and others noticed—were trying to warn. Unfortunately, with all the military and scientific might of the Soviet Union-- a country that conquered the outer space-- it was unable to warn us of an earthquake of such magnitude. That is what I call lack of accountability.

But what amazed me was the degree of aid and assistance that the international community responded with. Perhaps, since Gorbachev 'opened the doors' of the Communist empire with his policies, it became easier to assist. It was more than expected. Of course, much of my city is still recovering from that earthquake-- to this day, kids there do not have building structures for schools. Nonetheless, it would not even have accomplished that what has been done without the help of the world community. At that moment, even kind words could heal hearts. That was a living example of international solidarity and miracles it can do!

Click here for a video

Click here for Charles Aznavour's song dedicated to Armenia.

Accountability and transition from democracy to dictatorship

What happens when the government ceases to be accountable to the people? How does it happen? What are the signs of this illness and how can they be detected early? How can the people assert their will and not allow that to happen? Are elections sufficient? How can the electoral process be improved?
Even the most democratic government can turn into a dictatorship over time. This does not happen overnight. It is a long process with many ebbs and flows, with many false hopes and failures. But it is very much dependent on the relationship between the government and people. The two are in a diametric opposition to each other in some contexts (such as civil rights) and in concert in others (such as national defense).
But often it is the people who ‘permit’ or allow their government to slip into unaccountability and prospectively into a dictatorship. You may ask, what if the political elites are simply insensitive to the signals emanating from below, the populace. What if they engage in a tactic of saying one thing and doing quite the opposite. What if they turn a deaf ear to the populace or often blame their lack of response to other external factors. In a democratic country we have elections that hopefully can bring forth new elites, who could perhaps not repeat the mistakes of the former. But the new elites build on what they inherit on. They can never start from scratch. If there is damage of great proportions inflicted by the yesterday elites, how do you suppose the new elites can repair all of that? It is simply impossible. Since most people by virtue of their nature cling to the status quo, things get into a settled pattern. Therefore, the new elites can only continue the trodden paths, even when they have the best intentions.
But had the people not allowed the old elites gone so far, they would not have ended up with no choice.

Lack of accountability to its people also translates into lack thereof to the world. If you don’t care about your own people’s will, you will care less about the opinion of the world community. Thus civil rights violations at home, a necessary by-product of unaccountability, will also result in human rights violations abroad. There is no secret about it. It all extends in a linear fashion.
You may ask how people can stop a democracy from turning into a dictatorship? In this highly sophisticated, highly commercial world of material values, people are caught in the whirlwind of a culture that is not civic any longer. However, time goes very fast and one day they may wake up and not be able to control their very lives. Peope may miss the train unwittingly.

No government in the world was born to be a dictatorship. It is the people who ‘permit’ and allow it to turn into such by their complacency and inability to speak up. You can speak up in many different ways, such as voting, getting engaged in your community, or simply getting involved in local politics.

For example, at its inception in 1919 the Soviet Union was by its design and nature, a government for the people essentially… The very purpose of the Great October Revolution of 1917 was to topple the Tsar, who was deeply insensitive to the people and institute a government ruled by people, the working class and peasants. At its birth it was essentially a ‘democratic’ government, despite the fact it was energized by Marxism rather than the Western liberal ideals. (Many may disagree with this, but it all depends how you define ‘democracy’). However, very soon the Communist Party emerged. Crucially, people voluntarily subordinated themselves to the will of the Party and allowed the Party to slowly turn into an absolute dictatorship. There was resistance but unorganized and haphazard. This was all under the name of the ‘proletariat,’ the working class. It soon ceased to be accountable not only to its people, but also to the entire world. But it was the people after all who ‘permitted’ that to happen. Nobody wants violence or revolutions to topple governments. I am talking about civic resistance-- by becoming a member of a civic society.

Think about the Iraq war, the Bush administration’s actions at home and abroad. Think also about the paradox of Bush’s reelection.
Some may say, national security is paramount in times of crisis. But does national security have to come at a price of a democracy? Is it really necessary to turn into a dictatorship to protect our homeland? Can’t a democracy do it better?
Democracy/human rights and national defense are not mutually exclusive. We also have to be very critical in our definition of ‘crisis.’ An act of terror is not an invasion into one’s country, which would warrant invasion into another. If that was so, all countries on Earth would be justified in invading one another, because acts of terror occur in each and every one of them, with varying severity. So, there are different levels of ‘crisis.’ As far as protection against perceived and potential threats, there are many more means of doing so, such as diplomacy and economic incentives, without turning into an absolute dictatorship.

Aren’t we permitting a wonderful democracy that we used to have to slowly turn into a dictatorship? Perhaps we will wake up in half a century and America may have missed the train…

Think about this, when you go to vote next time in the elections! Think about the extinction of the civic society in our culture and the damage flowing from that...

Fearless-- that is what we are!

On November 2, 1938 for the first time Russian women were awarded the title of Hero of USSR. On the morning of September 24, 1938 Soviet pilots Valentina Grizodubova, Polina Osipenko and Marina Raskova, took up a non-stop flight from Moscow to the Far East on a two-engine plane for a total distance of 5908 km. During the flight the plane began freezing. The crew had to wear oxygen masks and endure freezing temperature. At some point, the radiostation went silent and the plane lost communication from below. Trying to make a landing at a nearest possible location, the fuel ran out and engine shut off. Grizobudova ordered Raskova to jump out on a parachute. The plane fell on a bog after being in air for 26 hours and 29 minutes. For more.

We, women, are capable of much more that the world is yet to find out!

Igor Talkov

On this day, in 1991 Russia lost another of its most talented and beloved sons, Igor Talkov (1956-1991). A poet, singer and activist for individual liberties, Talkov like Vysotsky came to awaken the slumbering conscience of the Soviet Union, that was already in ruins by the time of his death... He was assassinated in quite a mysterious way similar to many other famous assassinations in history. His life was indeed an example of what an enormous sacrifice it takes to fight for ideals... It is not beautiful phrases that make the difference, it is the degree of self-sacrifice and risk that one may take for higher ideals... Talkov was one of those rare people, that we have the luxury of having among us once in 50-60 years. He sang in anger,

I do not intend to foretell the future,
But I know for sure,
I will be back,
Even in hundreds of centuries,
Not to a country of idiots, but of geniuses,

And fallen in battle,
I will be reborn,
And will sing,
On the first day of a birthday
Of a country returning from war...
(Listen to this song here)

I am wondering, if he came back to today's Russia, would he be happy? I doubt it... Idealist that he was, he did not want half-freedoms or hypocrisy... It was all or nothing for him and he would have fought always, never satisfied or content.

(trans. by Zoya. For more on his songs, visit)

Sputnik

Just like the 9/11 shook the world, the launch of the Soviet Sputnik into cosmos shook the world on October 4, 1957. On that day the Soviets launched the first artificial Sputnik into space. On April 12, 1961 Gagarin, the first man ever was sent to cosmos, further shaking the world. The era of human conquering of the outer space began... The launch of the Sputnik was done by the military and was directed by the great academician Sergei Korolyov.

The US was in flames. Eisenhower was under a siege to resign. The US politicians who were not taking the atomic bomb of the Soviets seriously now had to rethink and reconsider the Soviet potential for hegemony. This event marked a new era in the Cold War and influenced the US in further restructuring of its domestic policies to countermand these developments. John F. Kennedy was to set the goal for sending America to the Moon... It was also John F. Kennedy who was able to courageously stop the Soviets placing nuclear weapons in Cuba. The Cuban Missile Crisis showcase was perhaps the closest that the world came to the nuclear war...

But looking back at these events, it is really instructive to learn how the great powers were able to influence and 'check and balance' each other by constant challenge... Challenge is good (as long as non-violent) because it makes one search inside and learn the truth... Unfortunately, the US as a superpower, while challenged in a major way by Islamic fundamentalists at 9/11, has not really searched inside and has not really learned the truth... It has been ignoring the rest of the world for more than a decade and has increasingly become isolated as a world leader... We are in need of new leadership that can indeed redefine and repaint the image of the US... Who can take up that enormous task? Will the American people choose the right person this time? Who is the right person when people have vastly different understandings about global leadership and foreign policy? When the general population is misinformed and not fully educated about issues driving this world...

Alexander Blok

Alexander Alexandrovich Blok was born on November 28, 1880, in Petersburg. His grandfather, Beketov, was the rector of the Petersburg University. His father was a lawyer and subsequently a professor of the Warsaw University, mother was a translator and a children’s writer. His first poems and prose appeared in 1887-1888. In 1898 he enrolled in the law school of the Petersburg University but three years later realized that the law was not for him and transferred to the section of philology (Slavic-Russian) of the University. In 1903 he married Lubov Mendeleeva, who was also from a highly intelligent family.

Beginning from 1904 Blok’s poems received great publicity and popularity. In 1906 he graduated from the University with the Highest Honors. He wrote and published ardently. His style was unique in that he represented symbolism and modern mysticism, while at the same time preserving the traditional rhythm handed down by Pushkin to the generations of Russian poets. So, while Blok is not similar to any Russian poet and he definitely was an original genius, he was not a loner and found his place in Russian literature very quickly. Marina Tsvetaeva (see on this blog), on the other hand, was less lucky, because her style was more rebellious and novel and it took her longer to establish herself, posthumously.

In contrast with Tsvetaeva, Blok accepted the October Revolution early and along with Vladimyr Mayakovsky he was to become the ‘Revolutionary poet.’ He wrote his famous poem “Twelve” dedicated to the Revolution and was greatly inspired by the political change that toppled the Tsar and instituted the government for the working people and peasants. However, immediately upon witnessing the ‘big lie’ of Leninism, Blok suffered enormously, realizing that he played a part of this.

On April 9, 1919 he made a speech at the World Literature conference entitled ‘The Collapse of Humanism.’ There he said:

Humanism to us is first of all associated with the powerful movement at the end of the Middle Ages which engulfed first Italy and then all of Europe and slogan of which was the human being—the free individual person. Therefore, the fundamental and central sign of humanism is individualism…. Naturally, when a new moving force appeared on the arena of European history—not the individual but the masses—it caused the crisis of humanism….

We have lost the balance… that was energizing and giving life to humanism… Today we have a choice, a critical choice that we need to make like bread for our very existence… In our catastrophic time every cultural beginning must be thought of in the same way as the first Christians were saving the spiritual treasures in the catacombs. The difference is that we can no longer hide anything under the ground; the path towards saving the spiritual treasures is not hiding them, but showing them to the world and showing them in a way that the world will perceive their sanctity and will enable their protection….

We can no longer deny the fact that a certain new and hostile to the civilized world movement is developing and sweeping the world; that the civilization is no longer a continent but a group of islands that can soon sink in an overwhelming flood, that the most valuable from the viewpoint of humanitarianism the ethical, aesthetic, legal products of civilization… —are either already flooded, or are under a grave threat. If we are truly civilized humanists we will never find peace with this; but if we do not accept it, and if we remain with the values that humanism has proclaimed as sacred, then won’t we be cut off from the rest of the world and culture, which is carrying on its spine this destructive flood?

Blok was afraid of the self-destructive force sweeping over Russia in the face of Communism and anti-humanism in the European continent as the precursor of Nazism. But he was also afraid that whether he and other humanists joined it or not, it was a force that had to be reckoned with. That struggle drove him crazy.

While he was respected and was even elected as the chairman of the Russian Writers’ Union, his mental condition was affected and was increasingly deteriorating. His wife was to get the worst of it. He would often get into an uncontrollable panic attack and deep depression and would break everything at home. Coming out of it, he would not even remember what he did. Maxim Gorky, the writer, his mentor and friend, was writing to others, begging for help for Blok. Before his death, Blok even deleted much of his work. So, what we have now is perhaps only 1/3 of his poems. On August 7, 1921 he died in his cabinet tragically and mysteriously.

Blok will remain as one of the geniuses of Russian literature. He foretold the tragedy of the 20th century. And he was to become a victim of the times he lived in, like Tsvetaeva and many of the Russian intelligentsia in the 20th century. While he embraced the ideals of the Russian Revolution, recognizing the oppression of Tsarism and the need for reform of the living conditions of workers and peasants, he realized that Leninism-Stalinism was not to do what it promised. He was an activist in his heart and thought that a true artist must partake of the reality surrounding him to be able to create. That is why, he could not help but be a part of the Revolution. But since by its nature Communism destroyed the individual and liberties, he could not accept it. He realized that Communism was inevitably going to destroy the intelligentsia. He predicted that even in 1908 when he wrote:

Tempest and culture… Feeling of catastrophe, illness, anxiety, explosion (the humanity is like people in front of a bomb.) History set up the bomb and cracked everything into pieces… The earth is burning. What type of fire will burst out of the earth’s crust—-will it save or destroy us? And will we even have the right to say that this fire, generally destructive, will destroy only us (the intelligentsia).

Destiny itself prepared me
In sacred awe
To bring light with my murky torch
At the doors of Idealism.

And only in the twilight of the eve,
Hastening with my earthly mind,
And possessed with heavenly fear,
I am burning in the fire of the Muse.

***
Oh, I madly want to live,
To immortalize the fleeting,
To humanize the impersonal
To realize what was a dream.
Let the life’s heavy dream suffocate me
Let me die in this dream
Perhaps, a happy youth
Will say in the future about me
“Let us forgive his melancholy
Was it his inner essence?
He was all a child of kindness and light
He was all the triumph of freedom.”

(All translations here are by Zoya)

"100 Siberian Postcards"

Archipelago Gulag is the cataclysm of the Soviet Union's dark past. The forced labor camps, masterminded by Lenin and established in 1919 reached their height in the 1930s under Stalin. In 1934 the Gulag, directed by NKVD had several million inmates... Here, this chilling remote region of Siberia, were sent not only criminals convicted of crimes, but mostly those who were critical of the regime, including many from the intelligentsia. Most projects, such as canals, bridges, dams were constructed by the prisoners of Gulag... Later Alexandr Solzhenitsyn was to write the true account of the Gulag, not really known to the majority of the Soviet people until Gorbachev's era...
While Gulag was closed, Siberia has preserved this dark past in its veins. Cruel by its weather and terrain, it captures one's imagination by its wildness and remoteness from civilization... A startling account of this mesmerizing quality can be glimpsed from the wonderful book by Richard Wirick "100 Siberian postcards." In his book Rick Wirick has caught the region in one swoop and memorialized it in unforgettable postcards...

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...

Weapons of mass destruction...

On August 29, 1949 there were successful experiments of the first Soviet atomic bomb in Semipalatinsk. This bomb was 2500 times more powerful than the one in Hiroshima. After the US showcase in Japan, Stalin urgently created a special committee for development of the bomb directed by Beria. The committee included reknowned scientists Voznesensky, Ioffe, Kapitsa, Kurchatov and Khariton. Once the Soviet Union officially had its bomb, the Cold War was set in motion and deterrence propped up by the relative nuclear parity of the two powers was in place for several decades... If the Soviets had not procured the bomb, the Cold War would probably not have happened. But of course, not one can reverse the historical time machine...
Today the nuclear club is comprised of US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea... Israel is an undeclared state possessing a sizeable arsenal. Iraq was wrongfully suspected. Iran is aspiring strongly.

Declaration of Independence

On August 23, 1990 the Soviet republic of Armenia proclaimed its Declaration of Independence (here). On September 23, 1991 it offically became independent after 99 percent of the voters voted for it. This marked a landmark because for the first time voting meant something and actually reflected the will of the people. While this movement was a natural consequence of the disintegration of the USSR and was nothing like the independence movements in Yugoslavia or India, it still meant much for the Armenian people. Historically, always subjugated and oppressed by others, this was the time when it could assert its political identity.

However, the years after the independence proved not easy. A country with few natural resources and no energy supplies, it found itself without electricity or gas for almost a decade. Homes were dark and cold, the lines for bread (bread that reminded of the famine during World War II-- not eatable) were long. The inability to provide for rudimentary needs of life soon resulted in the mass exodus of Armenians-- to Russia, Europe and further to the US. The war in the neighboring Georgia, absolute lack of any relations with Turkey and Russia's 'shock therapy' were going to affect the Armenian economy the most. To add to the troubles, the war in Nagorno Karabakh with Azerbaijan. If it had not been for the war, the fate of Armenians in that area would have been the same as that of the Armenians in Turkey in 1915, only this time in the hands of Azerbaijan. In those conditions and with the help of the Russian military, Armenians were able to protect their brethren in Karabakh. Of course, this war did result in the rise of nationalism in Armenia-- inevitable.

Therefore, the independence was a bitter drink. Of course, no one can say with certainty whether remaining a part of Russia would have changed anything or even would have been feasible, given the geography and location of Armenia. I personally always thought that Armenia should always be a part of Russia, to survive against the encroachments of Turkey and Azerbaijan and to be part of a larger community. It should be noted that while Armenia is independent, it still has very strong ties with Russia...

Armenia that always had the highest standard of living in the former USSR by all accounts, plummeted to the lowest. It has suffered from a corrupt government (instituted after the war in Nagorno Karabakh), which erased all the political opposition in the country and has suspended all the individual liberties. Now it is completely dependent on the Diaspora abroad and is not any different from a Third World country, except for its very high level of education and spiritual and cultural proximity to European ideals. By its history and culture, it is very similar to Greece.
Its location has defined the fate: always insecure and fearful, it is truly a phenomenon that it has survived, by preserving language, religion and even political consciousness...

Marina Tsvetaeva

"Poetry is born out of indignation," said Juvenal (Roman poet, 1-2nd CE). This can be said about the poetry of Marina Tsvetaeva, who used to say, "I don't believe in poetry that flows. If it bursts-- yes!" Marina Tsvetaeva was born in Moscow, Russia, on September 26, 1892, in an intelligent and highly educated family. Marina started writing poems at the age of 6, and not only in Russian, but also in French and German.

Her first collection was published at the age of 18. Very unique in her style and mature in consciousness, she wrote profusely and very passionately. The October Revolution of 1917 could not be accepted well by her, because of her 'intelligentsia' background and the bloody deeds of the Bolsheviks. So in this period she lived exclusively for the world of literature, remaning uninterested in politics and spending her days in miserable poverty. But she challenged all the norms in poetry by her new style. Her poems were like sparks from a rocket or pieces of rock thrown out of a burning volcano. She was an angry poet.

Her husband, Sergei Efron was an officer of the White Guard, which was wiped out and its remnants ejected out of Russia by the Bolsheviks in 1917. She, therefore, could not see him until 1922. Meanwhile, she had a very passionate lesbian affair with the poet Sofia Parnok, which had a huge influence on her writings. Later she could not forgive herself for that but always deeply loved this woman.

She was able to reunite with Efron in 1922 when she was allowed to travel abroad. Her emigrant life in Berlin, Prague and Paris was filled with torture and in complete poverty. She could not accept the intellectual void of the emigrants and the fact of separation from the homeland. Only as an immigrant she became politically aware and started accepting the core values of the Soviet Union. She was in touch with Vladimyr Mayakovsky-- the Revolutionary poet and was greatly inspired by his work. However, her poetry was not published even by the most liberal emigrant publishers (who were anti-Soviet) and Tsvetaeva basically was in complete seclusion and loneliness. At this time she got involved in other extramarrital affairs with men, one of whom was the poet Boris Pasternak. These relationships seemed to give her inspiration and hope in her troubled days.

She wrote in bitterness, "My reader is in Russia where my poems do not even reach." But she also never lost faith in her talent, "Time will come for my poems, like valuable wine." In this state of mind, she witnessed Hitler's rise and invasion into Checkoslovakia. That was the last straw for her poetic soul. In her writings she condemned the Nazis and encouraged the Check people to be strong and fight.

Finally in 1939 she was given Soviet citizenship and was able to return to Russia, only to face Stalinist oppression and Nazi invasion. In those days, anyone from abroad and from 'intelligentsia' was viewed with irrational suspicion by Stalin's thugs. Her husband was shot in 1941. When she asked for a job from the Center of Writers (subsidized by the government), she was refused any help. Living in complete poverty and hunger, she was evacuated to a small town Yelabuga to escape the Nazi invasion. There Marina Tsvetaeva is said to have committed suicide on August 31, 1941. The cause of her death was classified until the Khruschev's thaw of the 60s. To this day it is not clear whether it was a real suicide or a set-up by Stalin's chinovnicks.

Marina's poetry reflected the horrible times she lived in and her inability to accept that reality. She loved her country and accepted the core ideology of the Soviet Union, but could not accept the excesses, the oppression of the regime and absolute absence of individual liberties. Also because of her bisexuality, she constantly felt guilty and self-stigmatized. The society with its norms and materialism poisoned her life. "Breaking on your knees of granite, I am reborn with every wave!"

Her poetry is also about a paradox, a mystery that she took up to resolve in her life and invited readers to resolve with her. She was a poet of symbolism. "What is reading but solving, interpreting, extrapolating the mysterious and remaining outside of the paper the depth of words. Reading is first of all a coauthorship."
Marina will remain one of the brightest stars in the dark and tempestuous horizon of Russian history.
(All translations here are by Zoya)

Napoleon Bonaparte

On August 15, 1769 Napoleon Bonaparte was born (1769-1821). The legendary figure of the Romanticism and the carrier of the French Revolution, he dreamed of a United Europe under the leadership of France. A true cosmopolitan, Napoleon was too ambitious and too impatient for a natural development of history. The end justified the means to him and the use of force was a necessary by-product of realizing his dreams-- too far-fetched often. Yet, he was also a nationalistic figure, since he sought to subjugate all of Europe under the leadership of the French empire. Like Alexander the Great and Ceasar, Napoleon will remain a controversial figure. The dream to conquer the world historically always ended in a disaster... Pax Romana ended in the collapse of the Roman Empire and the attempts of expansionism brought the demise of the Soviet Union... Some people argue the unipolarism of today's world is a birth of Pax Americana... Hopefully, we have learned the lessons of history...