Heavy fighting in South Ossetia.

[SiberianTiger]

The immediate political consequences:

U.S., Poland sign missile shield deal

Ukraine vows to implement orders on Russia fleet

Georgia has withdrawn from the CIS (Russian side analysis here)

 

[adamb193]

The immediate political consequences:

U.S., Poland sign missile shield deal

Ukraine vows to implement orders on Russia fleet

Georgia has withdrawn from the CIS (Russian side analysis here)

I was in Prague when Rice was there about the Radar deal, didn't look like the protesters were getting much intrest.

 

[Notebook]

Just listening to a BBC radio reporter near the port of Poti,Georgia. He says Russian units are destroying any Georgian naval units they can find in the harbour. Two speedboats? and a coast-guard vessel so far.
Looks like the Russian Army is in no hurry to leave.

N.

 

[simonpro]

Just listening to a BBC radio reporter near the port of Poti,Georgia. He says Russian units are destroying any Georgian naval units they can find in the harbour. Two speedboats? and a coast-guard vessel so far.
Looks like the Russian Army is in no hurry to leave.

N.

He's obviously a little slow, then, the Russians destroyed all the boats in Poti on Wednesday.

 

[GregBurch]

Gary Kasparov's comments:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121876037443642795.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

 

[SiberianTiger]

Gary Kasparov's comments:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121876037443642795.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

I'm quite surprised that a chess champion is so close-minded that he did not recognize a chess game that is going on: Putin has exchanged few pawns for a knight and Crimean chevalier in Ukraine is backed up by the Eastern rook.

 

[GregBurch]

I'm quite surprised that a chess champion is so close-minded that he did not recognize a chess game that is going on: Putin has exchanged few pawns for a knight and Crimean chevalier in Ukraine is backed up by the Eastern rook.

It seemed to me that he recognized the chess game quite well -- he was giving Putin great credit as a strategist!

 

[SiberianTiger]

It seemed to me that he recognized the chess game quite well -- he was giving Putin great credit as a strategist!

Couldn't see this word in the article you linked to, sorry. But Kasparov is a left wing radical politician (mind left and right are reversed here). I put little confidence in his opinion, especially because he calls out for penance upon Russia in Western media. Kicking out Russia from G8 is something most won't give a damn about, it's been G7 all along anyway when it was coming to serious business. But what kind of sanctions against Russia he is dreaming about, leaves me wondering - and hoping that Putin is a great strategist indeed so nothing like this would ever happen.

 

[GregBurch]

Couldn't see this word in the article you linked to, sorry. But Kasparov is a left wing radical politician (mind left and right are reversed here).

I'm very curious to see you discuss this at more length. What do you mean by "left and right are reversed" in Russia? And how is Kasparov "radical?" I'm genuinely curious to know what your thoughts are about this are.

[I have to confess the honest curiosity: Many people are naturally suspicious when I ask questions like that, because of what I do for a living ]

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, SiberianTiger, you have to admit one aspect: Further to the right than Putin/Medvedev is not easy.

 

[simonpro]

KAsparov is about as biased a source of information as it is possible to find, I'd take anything he says with a pinch of salt.

As for radicalism, he's been involved in a number of violent demonstrations against the government.

 

[GregBurch]

KAsparov is about as biased a source of information as it is possible to find, I'd take anything he says with a pinch of salt.

As for radicalism, he's been involved in a number of violent demonstrations against the government.

My undergaduate training (very) long ago was in "Sinology" -- the study of things Chinese. In those distant days, these kinds of university studies in the US were usually grouped with "Russia studies," a function of the Cold War. Part of my education was in 20th century Russian history and the political theory and practice of Russian government from Marx through that time. The sinology students also shared facilities and social life with the Russian studies kids. So, back then -- again, a long, long time ago -- I had at least some familiarity with Russian political life.

Since then, I can't say I've read more than ten books about Russia, so I certainly don't know that much about the general context of what's going on in Moscow, much less Georgia, much less the specifics of either.

I didn't have the impression that Kasparov was the kind of character you've described. I've read no more than a few popular press acounts of him over the last few years as he's gotten into politics. I assume he's an egotist -- anyone in politics is, and anyone with his chess record would have to be.

What's the real foundation for saying he's "radical" or "unreliable?" Any pointers to good English-language material about him from people who have more insight than I do into Russian political life would be appreciated.

 

[dougkeenan]

KAsparov is about as biased a source of information as it is possible to find, I'd take anything he says with a pinch of salt.

As for radicalism, he's been involved in a number of violent demonstrations against the government.

I recall him being arrested. Was that because of his violence?

 

[SiberianTiger]

I'm very curious to see you discuss this at more length. What do you mean by "left and right are reversed" in Russia?

No problem, I will explain. It's growing up from history. Left wing of politics are those who are opposed to the current social order, those who seek a reform. In the West, such trend encompass Social Democrats, Socialists, Marxists, Anarchicts, etc. Right wing are the seekers of traditional society values, those who resist the change. Usually we mean a Conservator or a Traditionalists when we call somebody a Right.

Now consider that in Russia saying the 'old' or the 'traditional' reminds of the times of Communism and all the associated institutions, and is generally associated with an authoritative rule and commanded economy. It may seem strange to you, but this way, both ultra-liberals and ultra-revolutionary Communists fall to the same left wing in Russia. Anyone proclaiming for stability, order, bulding up army all that sort of things becomes automatically right. It is a very coarse division and it says little about the exact political party's programme on its own.

And how is Kasparov "radical?" I'm genuinely curious to know what your thoughts are about this are.

He leads a party called "The United Citizen's Front", which is a minor radical democratic party. It has been formed in 2005 and their main goal it to be opposition to Putin's "United Russia". Their programme contains many proposals of the reform of the Russian parliamentary system and focuses on giving more power to the regional authorities. However, they say little about economy or foreign policy, and their social sphere claims are mostly populist. IMO, this is too weak to be a decent political force.

By the way, they aren't an independent force: they are a part of a larger union of parties, called "Another Russia". This body unites protesters against the ruling regime from all portions of the political spectre. Among Mr. Kasparov's allies are "National Bolshevik" scandalous party whose members and leaders were accused of terrorism several times and "The Defence" union of young people, who don't have a political programme at all, and only aim to protest against the ruling regime, no matter what they do.

[I have to confess the honest curiosity: Many people are naturally suspicious when I ask questions like that, because of what I do for a living ][/quote]

Oh, and what do you do for living?


-----Posted Added-----

I recall him being arrested. Was that because of his violence?

No, that because of his close companions' violence. I wish he'd choose allies more careful... But little can be done to improve wit of one man.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think Kasparov actually got framed. Put a few black sheep in a demonstration and you have all reasons in a partially-democratic country (which includes Germany) to dissolve demonstrations and opposing parties.

Also, I disagree that left and right got turned around in Russia. You have to remember that Soviet Russia was only ruled by a left government for a very short time in history, but was otherwise ruled by Stalinists (You could also say fascists, as the difference between a stalinist and a fascist is only in the choice of words). It does not matter, if a party claims to be communist, when the structures and politics it proposes is not different to any fascist government.

So, with that model, Kasparovs party is what would be called a centrist federalistic party. His program does not seem to be overly left or right wing, but still along democratic principles. It opposes a centralistic regime (like Putin installed) in favor of strengthening the principles of federalism.

Using Bolshevists and radical civil rights activists as allies may not sound smart, but when you need a majority, alliances are the fastest way to achieve it. History is full of examples, where a moderate party allies with radicals for assuming a majority. Israel wouldn't be governable without such alliances.

Also, I think it shows great how far Putins reforms already progressed, when you can get arrested during a election campaign for the crimes of another (You can get interogated for the actions of others, but usually innocent until proven otherwise should be standard). The governors are already handpicked from a central government (That's no federalism). Democratic protest can get stopped and raided by the youth organisation of Putins party (Where is the police arresting those vandals?). Also, you have a Gleichschaltung of the Russian media (how many independent TV stations and newpapers do you know have left? Was close to zero, ain't I right?) and a strange high number of crimes against critical journalists and whistle-blowers.

So, what step is required next against democracy in Russia, for people to start questioning Putins constructs? Reinstallation of a Czar?

 

[SiberianTiger]

So, what step is required next against democracy in Russia, for people to start questioning Putins constructs? Reinstallation of a Czar?

Okay... Reading the English wikipedia (leaving out references to Greeks):

Democracy is a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and exercised directly by citizens. In modern times it has also been used to refer to a constitutional republic where the people have a voice through their elected representatives.

IIn political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy include. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.

Now the same article from Russian wikipedia:

Democracy is a form of a state's government or a political system is which authority is exerted either directly by people (direct democracy) or through representatives that are elected by the people or a part of the people (representative democracy). The main principle of democracy is equal and fair representation of the most wide interest of the population in the power structures and also dynamic adaptation of the ruling representative power in accordance with the change if the population's interests over time.

Liberties go there to, but this is a definition in a nutshell. Now you see the problem: it's a problem of definitions! No one can prove that one definition is better than another. :rofl:


-----Posted Added-----

how many independent TV stations and newpapers do you know have left? Was close to zero, ain't I right?

http://www.ntv.ru/
http://www.echo.msk.ru/
http://gazeta.ru/
http://www.kommersant.ru/

Is picking one of each media enough? Is it fine to go with no radicals' here?

 

[Andy44]

I'm very curious to see you discuss this at more length. What do you mean by "left and right are reversed" in Russia? And how is Kasparov "radical?" I'm genuinely curious to know what your thoughts are about this are.

SiberianTiger's answer about "liberal" and "conservative" is interesting, as is the link to "left" and "right".

I remember after the end of the Cold War when the American news media, which is biased leftward, started referring to the old communist hard-liner Russians as "right wing".

"Right", of course traditionally referred to those who lean towards fascism, while "left" refers to those who lean towards communism.

By that definition, the communist hardliners would be left-wingers.

But the American media thinks of themselves as left-wingers, and didn't want to associate themselves with the mean old dictator guys, so they decided to, as they have done many times before, re-define the meaning of right and left:

Now "right" means anyone who is mean and dictatorial and un-enlightened, etc., and "left" is anyone who cares for the poor poor people and is good and clean and happy and feeds baby birds and reads to blind kids, while drinking Starbucks products (1990s vintage, of course).


-----Posted Added-----


BTW, the news media pulled another fast one in the 2000 presidential election coverage, when they invented the whole "blue state / red state" thing.

USA Today's famous map depicted Republican counties or states in red graphics, while Democrat areas were colored blue. Since the Democrat Party is a left-leaning party and is idealogically slightly closer to communism than the Republicans, you would assume the Democrat states would be colored red.

USA Today did a smashing job of skewing the whole "red = communism" thing and changed the whole way people think of the subject.

Reminds me of something I read by George Orwell, about controlling language and how it is effective at stearing thoughts.

 

[GregBurch]

[I have to confess the honest curiosity: Many people are naturally suspicious when I ask questions like that, because of what I do for a living ]

Oh, and what do you do for living?

I'm a trial lawyer, so many people assume that when I ask a question, it's just a trick to get them to say something I want them to say ... This isn't true every time I ask a question.

SiberianTiger's answer about "liberal" and "conservative" is interesting, as is the link to "left" and "right".

I remember after the end of the Cold War when the American news media, which is biased leftward, started referring to the old communist hard-liner Russians as "right wing".

"Right", of course traditionally referred to those who lean towards fascism, while "left" refers to those who lean towards communism.

By that definition, the communist hardliners would be left-wingers.

But the American media thinks of themselves as left-wingers, and didn't want to associate themselves with the mean old dictator guys, so they decided to, as they have done many times before, re-define the meaning of right and left:

Now "right" means anyone who is mean and dictatorial and un-enlightened, etc., and "left" is anyone who cares for the poor poor people and is good and clean and happy and feeds baby birds and reads to blind kids, while drinking Starbucks products (1990s vintage, of course).

I agree with what you've said here, but I also think this is one of those places where the meaning of "left" and "right" breaks down. Perhaps the better axis is one that runs from authoritarian to libertarian. The problem is that the extremes of left and right both involve restrictions on personal liberty, but in the name of different inhumane ideals. On the left, first economic liberty is constrained, but ultimately all liberty is suppressed. On the right, first non-economic civil liberty is constrained, but then all personal liberty is finally lost.

One problem is that, in the large middle section of the traditional "left/right" spectrum, adherents to the two sides can't see the distinction in their own direction. By this I mean that people on the left side don't FEEL the loss of their economic personal liberty to be a great loss and people on the right side don't FEEL the loss of their civil liberties to be significant. Thus the "leftish" side of the spectrum is comfortable with laws that tax creativity out of existence and regulate economic activity to death, and people on the "rightish" side support laws that regulate what sex act are permitted and which chemicals are allowed to be put in your body by consenting adults.

BTW, the news media pulled another fast one in the 2000 presidential election coverage, when they invented the whole "blue state / red state" thing.

USA Today's famous map depicted Republican counties or states in red graphics, while Democrat areas were colored blue. Since the Democrat Party is a left-leaning party and is idealogically slightly closer to communism than the Republicans, you would assume the Democrat states would be colored red.

USA Today did a smashing job of skewing the whole "red = communism" thing and changed the whole way people think of the subject.

Reminds me of something I read by George Orwell, about controlling language and how it is effective at stearing thoughts.

Amen, brother. Every time I hear the damned "red-state/blue-state" thing, I want to vomit.

 

[Andy44]

[agree]Greg Burch[/agree]

 

[tomek]

If South Ossetia does not prove itself worth of the action, no Gleichschaltung of the Russian media will keep civilians from questioning the war, which killed their sons. "For what are we fighting for", will be the question. Georgia has it simpler, they can claim they fight for their territory.

According to what I hear from people in Russia, the situation is presented slightly different there. According to their media, many, if not most, of people in South Ossetia actually have Russian citizenship - about 10,000 before conflict. According to their media, Georgian population believes that "Georgia is for Georgians", and tried to "reunite the region" by getting rid of Ossetians there altogether - by starting to shoot civilians and what few peacekeepers were there, and causing the rest to flee the country. I was not there, and don't know for sure what happened there. But such scenario seems at least possible. The people I know from Russia approve their government's actions.