As usual, Hugh is more erudite and thought-provoking than the usual pundits. However, I have a soft spot for the Russians, which I realize may be dangerous. Putin is very popular, and for a good reason: the Russian people fear insecurity and chaos. The old reason for Tzars. I wonder if we are not too stubborn and self-centered in our ideas about democracy. We enjoy a special situation, full of wealth and security. Perhaps Putin is right for Russia at this point. We have treated the Russians shabbily, with cold-turkey capitalism, and extending NATO so close it is breathing down their necks. We have a common enemy in Islamic fundamentalism, and let us not forget how the Cossacks stopped the Turks. Putin is being very short-sighted on Iran, which puzzles me, since he surely knows about Muslims through Chechans. Evidently, he is desperately playing a balance of power game with Muslims (and Chinese), which is partly our fault in that we have made him feel insecure, with our actions, and our belicose, triumphalist rhetoric. At any rate, I would be inclined to lay off the criticism, as long as he is popular at home, and try to work a realpolitik deal with him. I agree with Pat Buchanan that all this baiting of him is dangerous at a time when we need allies against Islam. Also, I consider Russia to be part of Western civilization, notwithstanding her 'wild' aspects. They are smart people, with plenty of Ph.D.s and a great contribution to world culture, and in that sense they are also our natural allies, in that one aspect of the struggle against Islam is a struggle between civilization and intelligence, on the one side, and ignorance and fanaticism on the other.

Posted by: Benjamin at July 15, 2006 10:48 AM

Russia matters. The ethnic Russians are the largest European population group and all pretty much instinctively distrust mohammedans. Russians would never tolerate a level of Islamisation in their major cities that western europeans put up with in Amsterdam, Paris and Bradford.

Russian mistrust about American motives will never quite be resolved, but I don't think anyone there really takes much much note over western bleating about Chechnya.

When Russians make a movie about terrorists, the bad guys all scream Allah Akhbar. Until American movies start to reflect this reality, the USA has no grounds to ask Putin to move in their direction.

There is a large and growing middle class in Russia with salaries in the 1000-2000 dollar a month range. They have all visited Paris, many have been robbed and they all complain about the excessive numbers of 'arabi i negrov'.

And this growing middle class is starting to make babies.

Posted by: Sebastien at July 15, 2006 12:21 PM

I hope somebody creates a web site about the entire history of Islam and Jihad Terrorism in Russia.

Posted by: Christian at July 15, 2006 2:21 PM

It isn't often that I strongly disagree with you, Hugh, but this is the case now. If you can call Jeffrey Sachs, a man who thinks that the best way to reduce poverty in the Thrd World is to dump massive aid to poor, a "free-market fundamentalist", then you didn't read the real men, like Milton Friedman or the rest of the Chicago school. Sachs is after all, a graduate of Harvard, which remains a (sole?) bastion of Keynesianism to this day. Of course, Sachs knows very little about Eastern European economies, but so does Anders Aslund whom you are portraying as an expert; I've read lots of what he's written and heard him lecturing in D.C.: come on, give me a break.

The fact remains, though, that Sachs or any other American you can name had only infitely small influence on market "reforms" in Russia or rather a lack thereof. All these foreign consultants enriched themselves greatly (have you ever heard of Andrei Shleifer?), but they did little more than that (did I forget photo ops?). If there has ever been "shock therapy" of the Polish sort in Russia, then I must have missed it.

Nearly everything Yeltsin and his cronies did in the field of economics was aimed at enriching themselves; any constructive moves were usually byproducts of that activity. Managers of state enterprise were, of course, smart enough to figure out they could grab their enterprises virtually for free, but Yeltsin's clique were no bunch of fools either, and they had more power and access to the most lucrative assets; if you think that Roman Abramovich really owns everything that is usually ascribed to him, think again. Imagine you are president of a huge country, possessing great and virtually uncontrolled power; would you really give away for free some of the most precious assets in your country to a nobody, who just happened to work together with your daughter?

Don't underestimate Yeltsin's savvy; it would have been too uncharacteristic of him to act so stupidly. After all, Yeltsin was smart enough to outwit Mikhail Gorbachev in a power struggle, a byproduct of which was a complete collpase of the Soviet Union: no he didn't give away much of the Soviet Union in a "drunken stupor"; that was a conscious policy aimed at destrying Gorbachev's power so that Yeltsin could become president of an independent state rather than of a Soviet republic. Yeltsin was smart enough to put down any opposition that emerged during his reign and appoint a loyal successor so that he and his family could preserve all the looted billions of dollars and perhaps add more.

Western economic advisors were no more than conenient scapegoats for all the economic ills, which were actually the work of Yeltsin & Co. Likewise, the results of Yeltsin's power struggle were also swiftly attributed to the scheming Americans; the demonization of the U.S. with its deep anti-Semitic roots was a hallmark of the Soviet propaganda, all the new rulers had to do was to write new lyrics to the old tune.

Americans are no more guilty of alienating Russians by bombing Serbia, then the Danes are guilty of alienating Muslims by publishing the Muhammad cartoons. In fact, Russia's turn towards anti-Americanism began much earlier than 1999. Yevgeny Primakov was appointed Russian minister of foreign affairs back in 1996. Mr. Primakov is one of the most distinguished Soviet Arabists (read: professional anti-Semites despite Primakov's being Jewish); he was the advisor of Mahmoud Abbas's Holocaust-denying thesis that the future president of the Palestinian Authority wrote in Moscow. It was Primakov who made friends with Muammar Ghaddafi and Saddam Hussein, among other nice guys. In spring 1999, Primakov was already prime minister with huge powers and popularity and effective control over the foreign policy and the security services. All that was needed at the moment was a convenient pretext for an outburst of anti-American hysteria, but the war with Yugoslavia was just that: a pretext.

The last thing the American government should care about is whether its actions provide ammunition to conspiracy theories in Russia. All these conspiracy theories and anti-American sentiments come from the Russian government and more specifically from the security services; were it not for the desire on part of the government to whip up nationalism and xenophobia, there would be no anti-Americanism among Russian populace. So, let's leave Serbs alone. The war in Iraq led to a no smaller surge in anti-Americanism than the war with Yugoslavia; do Russians feel any attachment to Iraqis because they share the same religion?

That said, however, the American policy towards Russia has been incompetent and reprehensible ever since Russia emerged after the break-up of the Soviet Union, even if for a different reason. It wasn't that Americans wounded the Russian pride; Russians, just like Muslims, feel humiliated whenever they are told to stop exapnding their borders and bullying their neighbors.

The real failure of Washington foreign policy makers is their inability to comprehend the way Russian society works. The most important thing about the Russian society is that it is pervasively corrupt. It is corrupt from top to bottom, from Kaliningrad to Chukotka, from Murmansk to Vladivostok. In a corrupt society, people can't care it less for the good of the society and for its laws; the only thing they care about is their own personal well-being. Russian leaders are motvated by precisely this sort of thinking. Supplying nuclear technology to Iran was a good way of earning money, so why should they miss an opportunity? Weapon deals with Syria are somewhat less sweet, but a couple of extra millions of greenbucks won't hurt. On the other hand, what Russian leaders are supposed to earn by being on the side of the U.S.?

It is precisely this sort of thinking that remains a mystery for the people in Washington. It is, however, less of a mystery to people on the ground, and some of them even find it advantageous. Andrei Shleifer was mentioned above. Gerhard Schroeder is now officially on the Russian payroll. There is a widespread rumor that a former U.S. ambassador to Moscow opened a restaurant chain, while in office.

So, what are the implications of the Russian corruption for the American? Petrodollars are the fuel of jihad. The Saudis and their fellow jihad combatants work by corrupting the Western elites; the Russians don't even need to be corrupted. The U.S. has spent billions of dollars trying to buy the sympathies of Egypt and other Muslim nations. Predictably, for the Muslims, unbelievers remain unbelievers, and paying jizya is an unbelievers duty, not an act of good will.

With Russia the situation is different, for obvious reasons. No, I'm not talking about giving bribes, though this tactics is not entirely novel in the U.S. foreign policy. There are other ways of making sure that the Russian leadership understands that its well-being and security depend on its good relations with the West and especially with the U.S. more than on anything else. All influential people in Russia hold assets in Western countries; these assets are usually easy to track down. Hint to them that not all of those assets were obtained entirely legally. All well-to-do people in Russia travel abroad. Hint to them that they may no longer be able to go on vacation to Sardinia, the trendiest place for the wealthy Moscovites nowadays. Just hint, nothing more. It's easy to do. The results, however, will prove to be immense.

Posted by: Liggett at July 15, 2006 6:39 PM

Hugh,

I agree with your analysis with one caveat. One of the key reasons that the West (and particularly the United States) is their infection with the bizarre Cult of Democracy. The idea that if you just have free elections the people will always choose the best government. Usually the opposite is true.

Russia should have taken the approach of China, i.e. maintained a strong central state while helping build free enterprise from the ground up. Instead they plunged blindly into democracy and look what happened. The Oligarchs raped what was left of an economy already destroyed by 70 years of Marxism. Ukraine, Belorus and northern Kazakhstan were wrenched from the core of Slavic civilization and the worst forms of Western decadence have infected every facet of Russian life. Beyond that, the Great Soviet military that defeated Hitler collapsed and Muslim terrorists have made Russia their primary target.

Fortunately, all is not yet completely lost. Remember, Russia has been broken before. First under the Mongol Yoke but she revived under Ivan the Great. She seemed broken again during the Time of Troubles but was revived under the Romanovs. After Putin is gone and the current time of troubles is over, it is inevitable that Russia will again have a strongman who will restore the military, suppess the decadent Westernizers and subdue the Muslims. Of that I am confident. Then both the Turks and the West will shake before the Third Rome.

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 15, 2006 9:30 PM

"If you can call Jeffrey Sachs, a man who thinks that the best way to reduce poverty in the Thrd World is to dump massive aid to poor, a "free-market fundamentalist"
--- from a posting above

You misread me. I was discussing Sachs's instant-bath-of-capitalism he prescribed (he's changed his story since) for Russia, paying no attention to either Russian cultural attitudes, or what 70 years of Soviet rule could do. He appeared to think that what had been done in Poland could be done, just the same and with the same results, in the former Soviet Union. He was wrong, and his 1991-1994 stint there, and the results of his and simliar advice by others, has been the subject of a book, the name of whose author, a woman, I cannot right now remember. As for Harvard being full of "Keynesianism" now, as your choice of verb form implies, I don't know what you are thinking of -- Andrei Shleifer and those who agree with him fill that department, and not one of them could be called a "Keynesian." The last of those "Keynesians at Harvard died last month in his mid-90s, but John Kenneth Galbraith had been retired for nearly 30 years.

"Hint to them [the Russians] that they may no longer be able to go on vacation to Sardinia, the trendiest place for the wealthy Moscovites nowadays. Just hint, nothing more. It's easy to do."
-- from the same posting above

How would this work? Would the government of Romano Prodi tell the Russians they couldn't visit Cala di Volpe? Would the French declare Paris off-limits? I don't see this as "easy to do."

Posted by: Hugh at July 16, 2006 12:23 AM

Pravoslavni,

For the US, the aftermath of WW II created a new Japan and a new Germany. They are prosperous and peaceful democracies allied with America. After the Cold War fizzled, America (Washington, D. C.) hopes that the rebuilding after WW II is the model to solve every problem: Fight a little war, destabilize the old system, and rebuild a wonderful new democracy with a profitable economy. This worked in WW II because the intent was to win a war, to create an environment where the enemy could no longer engage in warfare, regardless of his desire to continue. A new Japan and new Germany rose from the ashes because the old ones had been largely obliterated and were ashes.

Now America wants to fight wars with rebuilding and creating democracy as the goal, thinking this is following the model of the "success" of WW II. Unfortunately, following this "model" is resulting in racing to reach the end solution before all the prerequisite action has taken place. So now America has largely won the war in Iraq, yet is still engaged in combat actions while rebuilding. Afghanistan is won, yet the inhumane aspects of Sharia is still being practiced. In Russia after the Cold War, America is trying to lead a country that has been ruled by totalitarian leaders for a thousand years (some good, some bad) to embrace democracy and free-markets. America (Washington politicians and the self-styled intelligentsia) have failed to appreciate how different the cultures of these countries are. Who knows what will happen in Afghanistan. Russia, without the rigid control of totalitarian police, will likely be destabilized by crime for some time. Perhaps some crime boss will gain enough power and savvy to reorganize and rule the country. Democracy imposed from the outside, by infidels, will surely be resented in Iraq. In Japan, America had the support of the emperor-god while rebuilding. In Germany, common Western European political ideals supported American efforts. In Iraq, there are factions never far from civil war, most of whom resent non-Muslims. Will they shed enough of their collective lunacy (Islam) to accept the peace offered them? Can you simply drop "democracy" and "free-markets" on a country that has never known them and the country suddenly flowers into a paradise?

Europe, I fear, has a different sickness: I often wonder if Europe, after the many years of religious wars (first against Islam, then each other), followed by the many years of empire building wars culminating in World Wars I and II, has decided that any injustice, any wrong, any peace is better than risking another war.

I az esm Pravoslavnim.

Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at July 16, 2006 1:25 AM

Haven't seen that "az" appear since I read the epigraph to "Anna Karenina."

Posted by: Hugh at July 16, 2006 1:35 AM

Of the nearly infinite list of persons or nations which could be indicted for losing Russia, American individuals and American Administrations are near the bottom of any reasonable list. Rather than asking "who lost Russia" it would be far more fruitful to ask: When did Russia begin losing herself and why? That would inform us as to "who lost Russia". Russia has been lost for at least a century -- and she continues to be lost. Russia got lost before America began to exert herself on the world stage, and blaming Russia's calamities on the US is revoltingly similar to blaming the calamities of Islam on US policies or actions. Could we understand the mindset of the Russians far better than we do? Of course. Could we have done a far better job of attempting to bring Russia finally out of serfdom at the end of the 20th Century? Of course. But blaming Russian failures on the US, or suggesting that we could have done much to bring Russia somehow into America's sphere is naive. The intellectual and political aristocracy which plagues Russia is deeply integral to her problems, and her continued adherence to this system is astonishing, given the abject failures such a system always delivers. The new Russian Tzars are very little different from the old Russian Tzars. If anything, they are worse, for they are a more professional class than those congenitally deficient "royals" of bygone years. In any case, the brand of intellectual paternalism which blames American policies for Russia's shortcomings is not at all surprising lately at JihadWatch.

When the Russians are finally able to drive their demons into the lake and prevent those responsible from escaping or transmogrifying themselves into the new caste of central characters, then she will be saved. It may never happen. Until then, no external force will ever be able to rescue her from the wilderness those criminals have created, or save her from the demons which possess her soul. Blaming outsiders will never yield the correct answer.

Posted by: jsla at July 16, 2006 12:53 PM

It's incorrect to ask who "lost" Russia because that country has never been "found" in the first place. Russia has had continuous statehood since 15th century and during that time it has always displayed hostility towards the West, autocracy, corruption, xenophobia, all the ills we are witnessing now. The Moscwo state was set up as "The Third Rome", a successor of the Byzantine Empire that defines itself in opposition to the West and Western values. Until "The Third Rome" project is finally laid to rest, there is little, if any, hope for change.

Posted by: Liggett at July 16, 2006 4:58 PM

Provoslavni wrote: "...both the Turks and the West will shake before the Third Rome."

See my comment above. Fantasies like this one are common in Russia, even among the educated classes.

Posted by: Liggett at July 16, 2006 5:00 PM

Liggett,

When I wrote those words I was most likely thinking of the old Tsarist military march "Znayut turki nas i shvedy" which means "We are known to Turks and Swedes”. This is the consciousness that Russia must regain.

And I make no apologies about my nostalgic Tsarism and advocacy of the idea of Holy Russia as the Third Rome. When Constantinople fell to the Turks, the niece of the last Byzantine Emperor married the Grand Duke of Muscovy. Thus Russia became the legitimate successor to Byzantium (the Second Rome) and through her to the Ceasers of the First Rome. Russia has suffered through 70 years captivity to atheistic Communism. But I can never accept that God has abandoned Russia.

Just as under the persecutions under Nero, Domitian, and the other tyrants of the First Rome, the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the Faith, I believe the same is true today. The True God is sovereign over the universe and neither Communism, Nazism, ungodly Western Secularism nor Islam will ever defeat Him.

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 16, 2006 11:59 PM

St. David,

"Perhaps some crime boss will gain enough power and savvy to reorganize and rule the country"

I hope not a crime boss but rather a military officer. I think one of the greatest tragedies to strike Russia was the untimely death of General Alexander Lebed. But perhaps there is another leader of the quality of Saint Alexander Nevsky waiting in the wings.

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 17, 2006 12:21 AM

The west has overall dealt reasonably with Russia. Can Russia say the same thing in return? I think not.

I smell blackmail in arguments concerning the west and Russia which seem to amount to 'do what Russia demands or it will partner up with China' (and has). No one gets everything they want at first. Success in relations between countries usually takes years, and in Russia's case given the cultural differences between it and the west under the best conditions we are looking at generations to make something of current efforts. Impasses such as what we are seeing are likely to happen at some point and one would think governments would realistically take this into account.

Did America, after the fall of the Berlin Wall sign an international pact with other nations to undermine Russia? Yet somehow, Russia did this in 1990 (with China) to undermine America and the west is expected to be held responsible for the decline in realtions with this country. Something doesn't add up right about all this.

Russia's endemic corruption, its addiction to state-imposed ideologies, its propensity to play both sides across the middle on the world stage (as with Iran mostrecently), all make it an unattractve country to deal with. And this must be taken into account for the sorry state of the western world's relationship with Russia.

It is interesting Russia has recently gotten chummy with China--a country at least equally corrupt. Maybe they were meant for each other.

If Russia had any real interest in joining the western democracies it would have taken steps to rein its infamous corruption by now. You will notice that this never happened. And it tells us that Russia was never very interested in partnering with the western world.

Wouldn't it be wonderful, too, if Russia would learn to behave like a country that understands and honors Christian principles to some degree (it IS allegedly Christian, or was). Then it would be possible for western nations to work with it and hammer out at last some cultural differences between it and the west. But I suspect Christianity in Russia was never much more than a facade.

I don't believe America and the western democracies "lost" Russia. I think Russia itself is "lost" at the moment. Let's dispose witht he blame game.

Posted by: pythagoras at July 17, 2006 1:47 PM

Provoslavni wrote: "When Constantinople fell to the Turks, the niece of the last Byzantine Emperor married the Grand Duke of Muscovy. Thus Russia became the legitimate successor to Byzantium (the Second Rome) and through her to the Ceasers of the First Rome."

Wow, what an impressive standard for "legitimate succession"! Sophia Paleologus, the nice of the last Byzantian emperor, had an elder sister, Helen, who was married to Lazar Brankovic, a Serbian prince. Logically then, Serbia, not Muscovy, must be considered a legitimate successor of the Byzantine Empire because Helen was the elder sister. Can you see where blind support for the absurd claims of the Russian propaganda leads to?

Posted by: Liggett at July 17, 2006 3:46 PM

Liggett,

That could have become the case except that between 1459 and 1804, Serbia was also under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. It was Russia that preserved Orthodox Christian civilization and successfully defended that civilization against invasions by both the Protestant Swedes and the Turkish Muslims. Because of Russia's expansion, many lands that had fallen to Islam were brought under Christian rule. In fact, several families in the Russian nobility were converts from Islam to Orthodoxy including the ancestors of Prince Yussopov, the man who killed that occultic madman Rasputin.

It is you who should stop believing anti-Russian and anti-Christian propaganda. It was this kind of mindset, displayed by Clinton and Mad Albright that led to NATO's criminal aggression against Serbia.

BTW, the alliance between Russia and China is a good thing since these two powers may together have the cojones to effectively resist Islam... something the West can never be trusted to do.

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 17, 2006 4:25 PM