Meanwhile, here in the West

 I've been following the war on YouTube.  The Ukrainians have mounted a stirring defense and are being applauded by Western nations.  They claim to only need regular replenishment of their weapons and ammunition in order to drive Russia completely out of most of territorial Ukraine.  Much of the Eastern part is inhabited by Russians and Russian speaking Ukrainians.  Samuel P. Huntington years ago in his Clash of Civilizations wrote about this.  He thought that Ukraine would be split up with the Eastern part becoming part of Russia and the Western part becoming forever independent, but he thought it would happen peacefully and logically.  Since his day, however, the view is growing among anthropologists that our species is much more warlike than was previously thought.  The idea of peaceful little scavengers has given way (to a significant degree) to a blood-thirsty ancestry not above eating our fallen enemies.  At one point around 40,000 years ago, during the Cro Magnon period, we went on a rampage and wiped out all competing species.  Huntington missed out on our current view of our species.

Francis Fukuyama in his overly optimistic The End of History and the Last Man thought that Western economic and political systems being so much more efficient than anything else out there would soon pervade the entire world and history, the sort of history involving war, would end.  However, the second part of his thesis involved the risk of autocrats, dictators, leaders whose egos would drive them to start wars for their own ego-centric reasons, and Putin seems to fit that pattern.  And the last men with weak chests and weak wills "may" let them get away with it.  In Putin's case the "may" may have turned to "will."

The historians who have studied Russia describe Russia’s well-deserved paranoia.  Danger historically, even before Napoleon came from the West.  Russians would be driven further and further to the east until the invader’s supply lines became exhausted and then they would retaliate and drive the enemy from their land.  But if their close-by buffer states side with the potential enemy, then the Russians when they are invaded might not have the necessary territory to retreat to. 

We hear mostly about Russian dissidents and soldiers unwilling to fight, but Putin has a lot of support among Russians, and they are as paranoid as he is.  We in the West insist that we have no interest invading Russia, but each year the Russians celebrate the time when the last invasion (Hitler's) was defeated.  There is no longer a Hitler anyplace in the West as far as we know and so we think Putin's paranoia unjustified, but the Russians who lived through the last invasion and their children find the steady encroachment of the West, albeit peaceful from our point of view, threatening. 

On the positive side, the Russian paranoia won't risk nuclear war.  They love their land and have always depended upon their armies -- traditionally not very competent at the beginning of their wars, but as they are winnowed while being driven further and further to the east, the soldiers who remain become super-soldiers well capable of defeating the enemy.  Why should they resort to weapons which could destroy large parts of their homeland?  They don't need to. Their land armies will take care of them. 

Once again, the Russians have begun poorly, but if they don't succeed in reacquiring their Communist era buffer states, they'll settle for what they have -- for now -- and then work on correcting the flaws in their soldiery, tactics and weapons.  They are not interested in World War Three, but later on, if the future gives them some other opportunities, they'll attempt to inch their borders westward once again.

As to what we in the West ought to do.  I think we're doing it.  The Russians may have their paranoia, but it isn't ours and our democratically based economies aren't comfortable with nations which have psychological problems, however historically deserved.  We in the West see no need for Putin's Russia to attack its neighbors.  Why don't they become as peaceful as we are -- as we prepare for war?  We know we have peaceful intentions, but at the same time we will not tolerate nations who start wars and are well prepared and positioned to crush them in warfare -- which we are extremely good at, by the way. :-)

Morris's ruling in a Huntington Clash

The title of Morris’s book is Why the West Rules – for Now, and the subtitle is “The Patterns of History, and what they reveal about the future.”  In the realm of Political Science I normally think there are only two paradigms: Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man, and Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations.  But there is another, the British Empire paradigm, and I wonder if it isn’t more influential (although probably less respected) than either of the former ones. 

Morris is flip, superficial, he skips matters that bear upon his ideas, and as of page 95 he has yet to explain what he means by “Rules.”  I’m guessing that he means what the Churchill meant when he famously told Eisenhower something along the lines of ‘Britain is no longer able to police the world so it is going to have to be up to you in the future.”  Britain was able to project its power through its unsurpassed navy, but since Churchill passed that baton to Eisenhower only the U.S. is able to project military power (in a significant way) any place in the world.  That is only partially true and I find the term “rules” if my guess about what Morris means is accurate terribly misleading. 

Back in early 2009 I was in a debate with Michael Kuznetsov (in my blog), a patriotic Russian who lived in, or perhaps only worked in, Moscow.  He had a web site that boasted that the Russian Army was the greatest military force in the world.  Given his assumptions about that matter, he was right.  What he meant wasn’t the sort of projection of military force that Churchill and (perhaps) Morris meant but the ability to defend Russia against any sort of attack.  The U.S. could project a military force into Iraq and another into Afghanistan but we don’t possess the ability or will to project one into Russia.  We couldn’t project one into China either.  And we wouldn’t be willing to project a force into virtually any nation at the present time.  But at this point Huntington’s paradigm impinges upon (or perhaps supports) Morris’s:

While the U.S. has neither the means nor the will to successfully invade Russia, it does have the means and under a future president might have the will to defend a nation, even a former S.S.R., on Russia’s border – given provocative circumstances.  The same sort of thing is true in regard to China, even more so perhaps, because the U.S. has very strong ties to Taiwan and the official policy of China is that Taiwan is integral to the Chinese nation and not an independent entity.   The U.S. may back away from the problem if Taiwan initiates a confrontation, but if the Chinese mainland initiates it, the U.S. may very well support Taiwan militarily.  This sort of “Clash” fits into Huntington’s paradigm.  Core nations such as the U.S., China, and Russia will not engage in all-out war with each other in the future.  Instead there will be “clashes” along the borders of the various “Civilizations.” Core nations may or may not become involved in these clashes.  A Clash in Georgia, or Taiwan, for example would fit Huntington’s paradigm.

If my guess about what Morris is up to is accurate, what sort of “rule” does he imagine the U.S. is engaged in – or capable of?  My opinion of Morris’s theories hasn’t grown any since I read his introduction.  He may mean something as banal as the ability to project another military force into another Middle Easter nation such as Iran.  Again, Huntington does a better job of dealing with such a matter.  If Iran decided to hold much of the world hostage by closing the Straits of Hormuz, the U.S. in the past would have stepped in and opened them up again.  Much of the world is dependent up oil flowing through these straits.  But if we happened to have an isolationist president who refused to interfere with Iran, arguing that we have enough oil and gas to satisfy our own needs and needn’t come to the aid of other nations, then one of those other nations, perhaps China or Japan would open up the Straits with a military force of their own.  If China did it perhaps Morris would argue that “rule” had passed from the U.S. to China. 

But perhaps I am taking Morris more seriously than he intends.  He seems to be enjoying himself even as he frustrates me: [from page 95] “Rituals are notoriously culture-specific.  Depending on when and where you find yourself, it may be that the mighty ones will listen only if you pour the blood of a live white goat on the right side of this particular rock; or only if you take off your shoes, kneel down, and pray facing in that direction; or if you tell your misdeeds to a man in black who doesn’t have sex . . .”

Khodorkovsky, Putin, and the Yukos Afair

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n04/keith-gessen/cell-block-four

The above is an article appearing in the 25 February 2010 issues of the London Review of Books.  It is written by Keith Gessen and entitled “Cell Block Four.”   It is a review of Richard Sakwa’s The Quality of Freedom: Khodorkovsky, Putin and the Yukos Affair. 

It isn’t likely that many of us in the U.S. are going to read the book.  It is priced at 177.31 USD at Amazon.com, if you want to read a “new” copy, and they only have one left.  http://www.amazon.com/Quality-Freedom-Khodorkovsky-Putin-Affair/dp/0199211574/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267240127&sr=1-3

Is Khodorkovsky guilty of the crimes he has been convicted of?  Gessen and probably Sakwa (if we can believe Gessen) think not.  They think this imprisonment of Khodorkovsky is an example of Putin flexing his muscles in order to punish the only “oligarch” who refused to escape to some other country.  Khodorkovsky, it seems, if we can believe him, and Gessen and Sakwa apparently do, did nothing wrong – or didn’t think he had done anything wrong.  His achievement with Yukos does sound admirable, the creation of an oil company that at one time paid more taxes into the Russian Federation’s coffers than any other enterprise, but the Red Queen said “off with his head,” and with that level of arbitrariness he was sent to prison where he has been for the past six years, and there may be more punishment in store for him after his eight-year sentence is up.

If we could return to the 19^th Century, the leaders of any nation would probably have made short work of a Khodorkovsky – well, perhaps not in any nation.  We wouldn’t have imprisoned a “Robber Baron” who did something along the lines of a Khodorkovsky.  We created new laws and gave them all fair warning.  We made them stop – sort of.  We in the U.S. seem always to have known that entrepreneurship is a valuable quality to be encouraged.  We have not sought to punish our entrepreneurs but merely to curb their greed when it becomes too egregious.  But letting loose the reins as much as possible has been good for our nation – at least in the economic sense.  We are as rich as we are, and that richness has trickled down quite substantially, as a result of them. 

Is the Russian Federation going to follow suit?  Is it going to encourage its entrepreneurs?  Well, not the first batch, not the equivalent of America’s 19^th century “Robber Barons.”   Under the influence of Heidegger, I can’t help suspecting that Russia’s “place of authentication” is different from America’s.  Here, we value our entrepreneurs.  Over there they seem to value something more restrictive, more authoritarian; which almost certainly won’t play well, competitively, against the Liberal Democracies of the world.  Unless they can loosen up and become more like the Liberal Democracies of the world, a few years from now a successor to Bernard Lewis might write another What Went Wrong?

It is not hopeless, we will be reminded.  After all, they have oil, but that is what Middle-Eastern nations have.  What comes after the oil?  They have no plans for that eventuality, but it is probably not going to be pretty.  Could the Russian Federation do better than Middle-Eastern nations are likely to?  In my opinion they can.  A good first step would be to turn Khodorkovsky loose and let him do what he does best, create wealth.

Kowalski: Diary of a Former Stalinist

Ludwik Kowalski has written another book, Tyranny to Freedom, Diary of a Former Stalinist.  Professor Kowalski’s first love is science but as he indicated in his previous book, Hell on Earth: Brutality and Violence Under the Stalinist Regime, he has had certain experiences, and has a certain testimony regarding what happened to him and his family.  He doesn’t want to see the brutality that was Stalinism softened and excused by modern day apologists.  And while his second book doesn’t deal with Stalinism with that same intensity, the intellectual intimidation he was subjected to was far greater than anything one might encounter in the West.

Tyranny to Freedom has three main threads, Kowalski’s education and developing career, his search for an ideal wife, and his adherence to and later disillusionment with the Communist System.  I wondered, as I read, how I would have handled living as he lived.  I can’t shake loose from my own experiences, my independence and freedom of thought, but these considerations are, of course, invalid.  If I lived in Poland or the USSR during that time, I would almost certainly have behaved more or less like everyone else – perhaps just as Kowalski did. 

Kowalski’s career and his pursuit of a proper wife are part of what make this book a “page turner,” but of more lasting significance is the progress this very-idealistic man made from his whole-hearted belief in the Communist System through the disappointment in its failures and on to seeing that the only logical course open to him as a Polish Jew was to move to the West.  I have read other things from individuals who lived through this period, and I wondered how guarded the recollections and how subdued their diaries.  But in Kowalski’s case he kept his diaries at an aunt’s house in France.  He felt free to express himself openly knowing Communist authorities were never going to have access to them. 

It isn't in his book, but Kowalski’s wife suggested that his diaries be preserved for use as a primary source by historians, but he didn’t think he was important enough for them to provide that sort of interest.  I second his wife’s opinion.  Historians have written books based on the diaries of soldiers who fought in the American Civil war or in the First World War.  So why not diaries of individuals who lived through Stalinism?  Many of us still puzzle over the great Communist experiment in the USSR and Eastern Europe.  How could so many have been caught up in it?  How could individuals raised in that system, as Kowalski was, believe so fervently in it for such a long time?   Could it have achieved viability as a system if the leaders had lived up to its ideals?  Or was it doomed from the start as I believe, and if so, what lessons can we draw about man’s credulity?

I commented recently about themes I saw in British TV, Dr. Who, Torchwood, and in the series Battlestar Galactica, demonstrating that some writers are seriously exploring the question of whether the human race deserves to survive as a species?   Very likely some of those screen writers would answer in the negative.  But here in this book we find an individual who has come through one of the most colossal mistakes mankind has ever perpetrated.  Surely if anyone is entitled to declare that homo sapiens doesn’t deserve to survive it is Kowalski, but that is not what we find.  We find this very optimistic professor valuing the time he spends with his daughter, discovering the religion he was never allowed to embrace as a child, writing some very interesting memoirs, and, one can learn by Googling on his name, engaging in some very controversial and provocative experiments (Cold Fusion).   Life for none of us is going to be free of error, but in this case, maybe the errors were made mostly by the system he was raised in and not so much by this person who did his very best to live honorably.

On the matter of Russian guilt

On pages 148-9 of The Art of the Novel, Milan Kundera in an essay (written, I suspect, in 1986) entitled “Sixty-three Words” discusses the word “Soviet.” 

“Soviet.  An adjective I do not use.  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: ‘four words, four lies’ (Cornelius Castoriadis).  The Soviet people: a verbal screen behind which all the Russified nations of that Empire are meant to be forgotten.  The term ‘Soviet’ suits not only the aggressive nationalism of Communist Greater Russia but also the national nostalgia of the dissidents.  It allows them to believe that through a feat of magic, Russia (the real Russia) has been removed from the so-called Soviet State and somehow survives as an intact, immaculate essence, free of all blame.  The German conscience: traumatized, incriminated by the Nazi era; Thomas Mann: pitiless arraignment of the Germanic spirit.  The ripest moment of Polish culture: Gombrowicz joyously excoriating ‘Polishness.’  Unthinkable for the Russians to excoriate ‘Russianness,’ that immaculate essence.  Not a Mann, not a Gombrowicz among them.”

COMMENT:  Kundera was born in Brno and had no reason to love the Soviet Union, but I wonder if what he says here isn’t still true.  He wrote before the fall of the Soviet Union, but afterwards, has there been any excoriation of ‘Russianness’?   I haven’t run across it if there has been.  Instead I have heard praise of the 100% pure ethnic Russian who is smarter, tougher, more resolute, and more competent than any other ethnicity or nation.  Also, their women are much prettier. 

I’ve seen some criticism of Moscow and its handling of internal affairs, but not so much of its handling of international affairs.  Putin and Medvedev seem to be fulfilling the desire on the part of a majority of Russians to have its leaders stand up to the West and assert their conception of themselves as a superpower. 

I recently pointed out themes in British, American and Canadian TV that question whether the human race deserves to survive.  Perhaps those writers have been influenced by the self-criticism that is so pervasive in the West, especially in the English speaking nations.  We have had our Mann’s and Gombrowicz’s in abundance, and perhaps they have been so influential that the rest of us look about us and ask, ‘if we are this bad, surely the planet would be better off if we turned it over to some more useful and benign species.’  Meanwhile Russians, though they may be struggling economically, and not willing to face the fact that except for their nuclear arsenal they resemble a third-world nation, haven’t lost confidence in Mother Russia and their Russianness. 

Oh there is plenty of criticism in the Russian Federation, but much of it comes from the non-Russian parts of the federation, and does it not seem to the Russian that it is alien and not really Russian?  Surely that sort of criticism provides the 100% ethnically pure Russians with no reason to think less of themselves, and certainly no cause to find anything to feel guilty about.  As to anything that happened during the Cold War, well that was the doing of that Georgian Stalin and his henchmen and does not reflect upon the immaculately pure Russian.

Alcoholism in the Russian Federation

Professor Kowalski responds to Michael Kuznetsov, or rather to my response to Michael Kuznetsov as follows:

-----Original Message-----
From: ludwik kowalski
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 7:13 PM
To: Lawrence Helm
Subject: Re: Further on Russia and the Communist Dream.

Thank you for showing the data, Lawrence.

1) Russian people deserve better. They will find a way to improve 

deplorable conditions.  But this will take time.

2) This thread reminded me that one of the first things that Gorbachev 

wanted to change, shortly before the disintegration of USSR, was 

widespread alcoholism. But he failed. The targeted population should 

had consisted of young children, not those who were already addicted.

3) How does alcoholism in Russia compare with alcoholism in China? I 

suspect alcoholism significantly  contributes to the present 

deplorable situation.

Ludwik

Checking out Professor Kowalski’s assertion, I found the following:

Yes, that is something I failed to address.  A “Russia-is-better-than-America” enthusiast has much more debris and detritus to deal with than an American – and probably the American doesn’t really bother with such arguments knowing that in most respects, no nation compares favorably to it. 

In regard to alcoholism, here is an article entitled “Russian Alcoholism amoung [sic] Highest in World.”  The report relates the high alcoholism rate to a high homicide rate.  http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-158333

And here is a recent article: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4920893,00.html  entitled “Medvedev in battle against Russian 'national disaster': alcoholism.”   The article includes the following:

“New studies suggest that the average Russian consumes some 18 liters (4.75 gallons) of pure alcohol per year. This is double the amount the World Health Organization considers harmful to one's health.           

“Russia has one of the highest rates of alcohol consumption in the world, and experts say this is a main reason for the relatively low life expectancy of Russians, especially Russian men. At present, a typical Russian man lives to the age of 57, which is three years lower than the retirement age.”

COMMENT:

Michael,

            I’m sure the Russian Federation has some good qualities – areas where the Russian Federation is superior to America, but I don’t think you hit upon them when you reference freedom to do what you like and the means to buy food. 

            If I understand Professor Kowalski’s tack, it is in the form of questioning why there are so many alcoholics in Russia if it is the superior nation that you imply.  That is not an issue that I ever considered before; so I’ll leave that up to him. 

            As for me, I view the Russian Federation as not recovered yet from the Communist experiment.  The Russian Federation hasn’t found its way yet, and it is much too soon to be saying, “hey look at us.”

Further on Russia and the Communist Dream.

Michael,

 

Your continuation note follows.  I'll make a few comments below it.

 

Lawrence

 

 

Michael_Kuznetsov has left a new comment on your post "Russia and the Communist Dream":

Lawrence:

I continue.

THE WEST IS HELL

Just how funny was that story of the man in Fairfax County, Virginia, who got up early on Monday morning, October 19, and walked naked into his own kitchen to make himself a cup of coffee? The next significant thing that happened to 29-year-old Eric Williamson was the local cops arriving to charge him with indecent exposure.

It turns out that while he was brewing the coffee, a mother who was taking her seven-year-old son along a path beside Williamson's house espied the naked householder and called the local precinct, or more likely her husband, who turns out to be a cop.

"Yes, I wasn't wearing any clothes," Williamson said later, "but I was alone, in my own home and I just got out of bed. It was dark and I had no idea anyone was outside looking in at me."
The story ended up on TV, and in the opening rounds the newscasters and network blogs had merciless sport with the Fairfax police for their absurd behaviour. Hasn't a man the right to walk around his own home (or in this case rented accommodation) dressed according to his fancy? Answer, obvious to anyone familiar with relevant case law: absolutely not.

I'd say that if the cops keep it up, and some prosecutor scents opportunity, Williamson will be pretty lucky if they don't throw some cobbled-up indictment at him. Toss in a jailhouse snitch keen to make his own plea deal, a faked police line-up, maybe an artist's impression of the Fairfax Flasher, and Eric could end up losing his visitation rights and, if worst comes to worst, getting ten years in jail and being posted for life on some sex offender site.

You think we're living in the 21st century, in the clinical fantasy world of CSI? Wrong. So far as forensic evidence is concerned, we remain planted in the 17th century with trial by ordeal, such as when they killed women for being witches if they floated when thrown into a pond.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/55336,news-comment,news-politics,virginia-witch-hunt-the-naked-truth-about-american-sexual-prudery

These three shorts stories explain why I do repeat it over and over again: We Russians do not belong to the West.
Thank God!

Cheers!

Michael


COMMENT:

 

Michael,

 

Firstly I notice that what you offer in the way of an argument is "anecdotal."  Anecdotal evidence is considered by logicians among the weakest kind.  In fact if one uses it one is very likely to commit a "fallacy."  The fallacy could be illustrated as follows:  A man walks naked in his own house and is arrested; therefore all men who walk naked in their own houses will be arrested. 

 

You can see, I hope, that one incident doesn't make a principle.   You would need a greater "sampling" than a single incident to be able to establish a principle.  The writer of the Virginia article may have an ax to grind.  I have personally never heard of such a thing happening in California or any place else until you sent this article.

 

As to Americans having "food insecurity" - not having enough food for an active, healthy lifestyle," yes, we are enduring either a "recession" or a "depression," and many will be in that category. Notice that the article you posted doesn't say anyone is starving, just that they may not feel they are eating as well as they should. 

 

The root of the issue is that we in the West have free economies.  Liberal Democracies do not have socialistic control over the means of production.  Only Communism sought to do that.  Even National Socialism didn't seek that level of control.  And as long as you have the "market" free to rise and fall according to demand, then there will be times when you will have recessions or depressions.  These are unfortunate.  But Liberal Democracies (nor any other form of government) do not do well trying to run businesses or farming.  I can quote experiments conducted during the Stalinist period when many starved as a result of Soviet management of farming.

 

Also we read many anecdotes of individuals walking into Soviet stores to find the shelves bare or nearly so.   That has never been true in the America I am familiar with.  The shelves have always been full.  People can't always buy everything they would like, but they don't starve.

 

But also, the sort of government that can control the market and farming is the sort of government that strives to control the people.  At least that was true in the two famous 20^th century experiments, Communism and Fascism.  Would we willingly put up with that level of control so that we won't starve – oh wait, they did starve under Communism. 

 

To move away from the anecdotal, here are some statistical comparisons we might discuss:

 

The Russian Federation:

Total population: 143,221,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 12,740

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 60/73

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 53/64

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 13

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 432/158

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 638

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 5.3

Figures are for 2006 unless indicated. Source: World Health Statistics 2008

 

The United States of America:

Statistics:

Total population: 302,841,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 44,070

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75/80

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 67/71

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 8

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 137/80

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 6,714

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 15.3

Figures are for 2006 unless indicated. Source: World Health Statistics 2008

 

 

 

RE: on Russia and the Communist Dream.

Michael,

Good to hear from you.  I'll post your note on my blog and also see that Professor Kowalski gets a copy.  I am interested in your point of view.

I'll post your second note and then comment a bit.

Lawrence

Michael Kuznetsov has left a new comment on your post "Russia and the Communist Dream":

Lawrence:

As you know Prof. Ludwik Kowalski wrote a book about my country Russia.
He entitled it Hell on Earth.

Some 20 years ago, when 90 percent of us Russians were ardently pro-American, that book might have been a great success in Russia. But not now.

At present it is evident for us that real Hell on Earth is the West.

Below are a few short stories (out of a great lot I've collected) that prove my assertion:

THE WEST IS HELL

USDA: Number of Americans going hungry increases
By HENRY C. JACKSON (AP)
WASHINGTON November 17 2009

More than one in seven American households struggled to put enough food on the table in 2008, the highest rate since the Agriculture Department began tracking food security levels in 1995.

That's about 49 million people, or 14.6 percent of U.S. households. The numbers are a significant increase from 2007, when 11.1 percent of U.S. households suffered from what USDA classifies as "food insecurity" — not having enough food for an active, healthy lifestyle.
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/1310ap_us_hunger_report.html

THE WEST IS HELL

George Sodini, left behind a diary that makes everything as clear as can be – so clear, in fact, that the media is doing everything it can to avoid looking at what it really says. Because this massacre is really about the desperation and hate so common in America. You can't understand yesterday's health club massacre in Pennsylvania, leaving 3 women dead, 10 injured, and the male gunman with his brains blown out, without recognizing this misery and hate.

Most Americans' lives have grown worse over the past three decades: today, average American male workers earn less than they did in 1979 in inflation-adjusted dollars, while the top 400 richest Americans own more than the bottom 150 million Americans, a wealth gap only found in tinpot Third World kleptocracies, and not seen here since 1928. That alone is reason enough to hate.

Even Warren Buffet admitted it in a interview with the New York Times: "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." For some reason, only the rich have the courage to talk about it.

http://exiledonline.com/revenge-of-the-nerd-what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-the-rampage-killer-who-attacked-a-pittsburgh-aerobics-class/#more-10894

to be continued

Russia and the Communist Dream

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110202900.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

The above article was posted on The Washington Post website this morning. It was written by Masha Lipman from Moscow and entitled “Russia’s Search for Identity.” An internet article describes her as follows: “Masha Lipman or Maria Lipman is a Russian journalist. She received MA from the Moscow State University, Department of Philology in 1974. Masha Lipman is the editor of the "Pro et Contra" journal, published by the Carnegie Moscow Center. Lipman is also an expert in the Civil Society Program at the Carnegie Moscow Center. She served as deputy editor of the Russian weekly "Ezhenedel’ny zhurnal" from 2001 to 2003.”

Her take on the ongoing admiration for Stalin is consistent with other things I’ve read. She takes a Western view toward globalism when she writes, “For the government, this acceptance of Stalin and the paternalistic state-society pattern may be handy as a way to consolidate power. But some in the decision-making circles do seem to realize that current social, political and economic models are unable to produce growth and development. From Putin and Medvedev down, modernization has become the mantra. . . Unless Russia reinvents itself and takes real steps to encourage people's entrepreneurship and creativity, talk of modernization will remain hollow.”

But most interesting to me, as applying to the after-effects of the Communistic dream was the sentence: “But modernization is incompatible with a statehood based on the specter of Stalin and faith in the magic empowerment of the apathetic people by forces of the state. “

How is Russia to sail out of its economic doldrums? Lipman says it needs to “take real steps to encourage people’s entrepreneurship and creativity.” But how is Russia to do that when an underlying prerequisite for entrepreneurship, i.e., freedom to do and think whatever one likes, is missing from the Russian psyche? It was stamped out during the Stalinistic era. And while Russia might find an individual here and there, the prevalent attitude is, according to Lipman, apathetic “faith in the magic empowerment . . . by forces of the state.”

Yes, we are still inclined to rate Communism above Fascism, but perhaps that is only because we remember the time when we imagined a utopia might eventually find a place in reality. Surely that dream is worth something. Or is it? We in the West only dreamed of the Communist utopia. In Russia they tried to build it; so any comparison of Communism and Fascism needs to take a look at modern-day Russia. The Russians were force-fed the Communist dream year after year. And now they can’t wake up.

Eating meat, over-population, and the end of Western and Russian civilizations

In San Jacinto, housing tracts have for some years been replacing dairy farms, but there are several within easy walking distance. My Ridgeback girls are interested in the cows they see there, and the cows in turn are interested in them. These cows have intelligent soulful eyes, and I probably never look in a cow’s eyes without wondering what sort of person could kill such a creature and turn it into hamburger. Of course the cows whom I look at are raised for their milk . . . or are they? I see tags on the ears of young ones from time to time and Imagine lines of people and unsmiling uniformed men ushering those to the left who will be used for work and those to the right who will be sent to the ovens.

We might ask, why are (many of us) so squeamish when we look into a cow’s eyes, but have little difficulty stopping on the way home and buying a couple of hamburgers from Carl’s? If we were to try and invoke Kant, what sort of principle could we create so that right and wrong could be clearly established – if not for everyone, at least for us.

We know from anthropological and historical studies that for all but a tiny sliver of our specie’s history we were quite content to war with each other and kill and eat almost anything that came to hand. So what changed us?

Surely this newfound (relatively) squeamishness regarding the killing and eating of meat is related to our newfound (relatively) desire to end war. Most of those on the Right and Left genuinely wish to end war. On the Right they think the best way to avoid war (if not for everyone, at least for us) is to be prepared so that no nation will wish to attack us. On the left there is hope that some new social structure, perhaps a universal Government can end war. But in the meantime we still war, and we still eat meat.

When did this squeamishness begin? Radical Islam is laying all sorts of bizarre fabrications at the feet of the Jews and the West, but this may be one thing that genuinely belongs there. From the Judaic-Christian tradition, we have learned to desire a time when we will have beaten our spears into ploughshares and our swords into pruning hooks. In that serene future, the lion, we are told, will lie down with the lamb. Surely if the lion will do it, we will as well, and if we lie down with him, will we later rise up again and eat him?

The spear and sword metaphor works well for the ending of war, and yet many Christian theologians would argue that it is God who will create that condition (the cessation of war) and not man. Even so, the desire to do it ourselves, or at least reduce the numbers and severity of wars, is strong.

Perhaps the desire to stop eating meat is becoming strong as well, but we can’t as good stewards of the earth allow animals to breed without control. In our newfound squeamishness we eliminated the wolf from Yosemite so that bison, elk, and deer could have a paradise there. But the horrors of overpopulation and subsequent starvation were shocking to those striving to manage the region. In the end they decided that their solution did more harm than good and let the wolf return. Leave it the way God (or “nature” the atheists would say) intended, for we know that way works.

But what did God intend in regard to humans? Human population was being controlled quite nicely with famines and diseases and war, but we moderns have “improved” our lot. We have nearly eliminated famine -- we have enabled ourselves to produce more food than Thomas Malthus could ever have dreamed of. And if we think about this at all nowadays, we feel guilty because we haven’t eliminated all famine everywhere.

In regard to disease, we have research facilities working diligently to find solutions to all diseases everywhere. Research for the most serious diseases such as heart disease, cancer and AIDS are funded more generously than the lesser diseases, but funding is available for many of them as well. Do we worry about what happens if we eliminate all disease; so that all the people who die off early, especially before bearing a child are saved?

Some people do worry about that. In China, with the worst over-population problem, they practice abortion religiously. In Europe, perhaps the most sophisticated region (in these regards), they have abandoned over-production of children. No government edict forced them to do that, they just did it. They were so successful that we have writers like Bat Ye’or worrying about Muslims pouring into Europe and waxing while the Europeans wane. They fear the loss of sophisticated Western Europe and Russia to the more primitive the less sophisticated Muslims.

Believers in Islam do not seem to have, let it be said, the same squeamishness about war, the eating of meat, and over-population that the more sophisticated civilizations have.

Many of us would argue that Pacifism can never work because as soon as one nation gives up its fighting ability, it creates an overwhelming temptation for some neighbor who has not. Something like that is occurring in Europe and Russia. Not the abandoning of self-defense, but they are not producing enough children to sustain their current populations. To see Muslims coming into these regions with excellent child-producing habits, alarms many in Europe and Russia

It is a knotty problem. Europeans and Russians can’t in good conscience overpopulate their nations like Yosemite once was. They would be content with abstinence. They do not feel the need for the reintroduction of the wolf. They want to go on eliminating disease and famine. But the wolf is at their door anyway. War in a new sense is being waged. Radical Islam is engaged in a new “soft” war where it out-produces European and Russian children and infiltrates them into the old, decadent (the Radical Islamists would say) populations.

In the past we sometimes worried about things that never happened. Malthus is an example of that. But it is never wrong to worry about war. Go back anthropologically as far as the scientists will let you and you will find our species, and our species predecessors engaged in war. It is a modern dream that war can be eliminated, but surely we shouldn’t act as though that dream were a reality. While theories abound, no one has demonstrated beyond doubt that war can be eliminated. In the meantime we must strive to keep the wolf from our particular door. He is still out there.

North Caucasus War and 'War making' in general

http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2009/10/window-on-eurasia-military-conflict-in.html

The above article was written by Paul Goble and entitled “North Caucasus ‘Comparable to NATO War in Afghanistan, Russian General Says.” I’ll quote from it and make some comments below.

“. . . Even though Moscow is claiming that Russian forces have killed more than 2100 militants in the North Caucasus over the last six years and captured nearly 6300 during the same period, a Russian general says fighting there even now is “comparable to the operation against the Taliban which NATO countries are conducting in Afghanistan.

“Lt. Gen. Yury Netkachev, who earlier commanded the Russian military in the Caucasus, told “Nezavisimoye voyennoye obozreniye” last week that ‘the scope of military actions of the federal forces’ against “the bandits” and the size of the Russian forces involved are roughly comparable to those of NATO in Afghanistan. . .

“Both the Russian forces and the NATO forces number approximately 100,000, both have suffered comparable losses – 250 in the Russian case and 350 in the 350 in NATO’s – but, he continued, that means Russian forces are performing much worse because they face a much smaller enemy – 500 to 700 hard core militants as against to 20-25,000 Taliban.

“Netkachev made these suggestions as part of his argument that Moscow should not have ended the counter-terrorist regime in Chechnya last April, especially since the remaining militants have proved to be inventive in their use of ‘partisan and terrorist methods of struggle with the federal forces.’

“. . . this week, the Russian Interior Ministry (MVD) tried to put a positive spin on what Russian forces have achieved. But this MVD media blitz quickly ran into three kinds of trouble. First, other officials, including prosecutors in the Southern Federal District provided different statistics . . .”

“Second, officials, including these same prosecutors, said that crimes involving the use of guns and explosives had actually gone up more than 26 percent over the last year . . .”

“And third, and perhaps most important, the very figures the MVD has provided shows just how much anti-Moscow resistance there has been in the North Caucasus, thus undercutting Vladimir Putin’s frequent claims of victory and raising new questions in the minds of many Russians about whether it is worthwhile to continue the struggle there.”

COMMENT:

Just this morning I received a response to one of my notes about dogs & veterinarians; which began with the disclaimer that she wouldn’t comment about my opinions on politics and war making. Apparently she had strayed beyond my notes on dogs, but she didn’t say exactly what she read. In wondering about what she had read, I decided I could use almost any article to exemplify my views on “war making,” this one included. War making is one of the chief characteristics of our species. We have done it for our entire history and anthropologists tell us we did it for all of our prehistory as well. Furthermore, all available evidence suggests that we are going to continue doing it on into the future.

In June I wrote an article on David Fromkin’s The Independence of Nations. http://www.lawrencehelm.com/2009/06/fromkin-on-survival-of-human-race.html . Fromkin, presupposing the widely accepted view that man is a war-making species, didn’t think the chances were good for our survival.

As to why my friend objected to my views on “war making,” I suspect she leans toward pacifism, but hardly anyone leans that way in any logical sense anymore. I wrote in June, “. . . pacifism doesn’t work, but probably only a few benighted souls on the fringe still believe in it. No government holds to pacifism; the views that predominated in Britain, France & the US prior to 1937. Pacifism didn’t stop World War II. It merely made it easier for Germany and Japan to start it. No one is unilaterally disarming today, certainly not Britain, France or the US.”

I could add, “and certainly not Russia,” and yet Russia doesn’t seem comfortable fighting against their clear enemy, Radical Islam. Russian politicians are playing political games with the threat. Is their army more or less effective than the army fighting against the Taliban in Afghanistan? Sorry, my Russian friends, but that doesn’t strike me as highly important. Why don’t you instead concentrate on the fact that the Radical Islamic element of Islam is your implacable enemy? It is seeking to destroy you. You have “war making” ability, but it is geared toward the Czar’s army rushing on horseback against Napoleon. The Radical Islamists don’t fight that way, and neither must you. You are not a pacifistic nation and yet what you do is sometimes a “practical pacifism.” You don’t try as hard as you should against this enemy you can’t quite identify or explain. Unfortunately, this enemy has identified you and has his own working definition of your identity.

And it isn’t just you, Russia. We are the same in Europe and the US. There are some who think there is nothing to Radical Islam and that it will just peter out in a few years due to lack of interest, but our specie’s history suggests otherwise. Why should the Radical Islamists quit? Why should they lose interest? They think they are winning.

As to the ongoing interest in pacifism, while it cannot be logically defended, certain gentle souls embrace it (probably they must embrace it) for emotional reasons. Surely, they think, we must know we are embarked on a suicidal course. We must abolish war because it is suicidal. Alas, that is contrary to human nature. We think instead that we must continue to fight wars, because not to do so is suicidal. There is no evidence to support the idea that pacifism could work whether in the unilateral disarmament of an individual nation or the attempted disarmament of the world. But there is ample evidence to support the idea that a well prepared and well defended nation will survive.

Also, those who prepare for war will be far more likely to avoid it than those who do not do so. That too is human nature.

Missile Defense of Central Europe?

http://email.capitolhillnewsonline.com/m/d85QdYoUIzv1TeR6SQlCRKY2GygndfuiQVVk6fFmaWUnv0wpjA

A reader sent me the above which is essentially a petition sent to Obama entitled, “Foreign Policy Experts urge Obama to Recommit to Central Europe.”

The main concern of the signatories is the Obama decision not to install fixed missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.

I have written some notes on this subject. I’m not convinced that the issues are as clear-cut as the signatories describe in their letter. For starters, did we really intend the missile defense system to guard Eastern Europe against Iran? Russia doesn’t think so and I’m afraid I don’t either. I have a low opinion of the leadership in Iran, but even if they had missiles to spare, I can’t believe that Poland and the Czech Republic would be very high on their “hit list.” In fact I can’t imagine why they would be on Iran’s list at all. Also, please note, Iran has no missiles that can travel all the way to Poland or the Czech Republic.

Surely, one of the reasons for the fixed Missile Defense system was to protect Poland and the Czech Republic against Russia. It wasn’t the only reason, but it had to be someplace on the list of reasons for installing them there. Maybe reason one was to protect everyone everywhere from Rogue States. But placating Poland’s and the Czech Republic’s fears of Russia had to be on the list someplace. They have been victims of Russian aggression in the past and do not trust Russia to never invade them again. The petition doesn’t discuss this fear.

Even if Russia did have imperialistic designs on Poland and the Czech Republic, which I don’t believe, they are in an extremely poor position economically and militarily to do anything about them. Oh yes, they do have missiles and they could, theoretically, bomb both Poland and the Czech Republic, but why would they?

Moving on to another issue, what if Russia developed its own missile defense system and launched a missile to stop an incoming missile from a Rogue State. Would the Polish Missile defense system shoot down the Rogue-State’s missile or the Russian missile intended to stop it?

Also, another thing not discussed in the above petition is that we intend to protect both Poland and the Czech Republic with our new plan. Consider the following article published today: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?ots591=4888CAA0-B3DB-1461-98B9-E20E7B9C13D4&lng=en&id=106572 It is entitled “A Better Missile Defense.” It states what I would say is my understanding of the new plan: “The administration’s move came in response to new US intelligence assessments that Iran’s progress in developing ICBM capabilities has been much slower than had previously been thought, while its short- and medium-range missile arsenal advances more rapidly than estimated.

“This makes an attack with hundreds of smaller missiles against US troops and allies in the Middle East and Europe the most likely near-term threat scenario – a scenario in which Bush’s proposed missile defense, yet to be tested under real world conditions, would have been useless.”

Does Obama’s new plan render Eastern Europe defenseless? I can’t see that it does. This article provides a good description of the Obama plan:

“Phase one of the new plan envisions a sea-based missile defense by 2011 with the much smaller standard SM-3 missiles available today, which are designed to intercept shorter-range missiles typically flying slower and closer to the ground than ICBMs. Improved sensor technologies stationed in Southeastern Europe will complement the system, offering a variety of options to detect and track enemy missiles.

“By 2015, a more advanced version of the system would be deployed, including defense missiles that could be launched from both sea and land, while in phase three and four, further improved SM-3 missiles would, after extensive testing, address the potential Iranian ICBM threat to the US by 2020.”

“. . . First and foremost, the new system is based on current or soon available technologies and consequently will be operational six to seven years sooner than the previous program, and at less expense. According to General James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, two to three ships would suffice to protect Europe from shorter-range Iranian missiles. The use of the comparatively cheap SM-3 missile makes it a relatively inexpensive defensive system.

“It is also a more survivable system and offers a high degree of flexibility in terms of geographical deployment and adaptability to growing threats as it would allow the US to deploy potentially hundreds of SM-3 missiles to sites in Europe and American ships in nearby waterways, thus exceeding the interception potential of the 10 ground-based defensive missiles in Poland envisioned in the previous program by far.

“Furthermore, it offers the flexibility to adjust and technologically upgrade the architecture according to the current threat situation, while still leaving the door open to deploy long-range interceptors once that technology is proven to work and the Iranian ICBM threat advances beyond the merely theoretical.’”

I hate to disagree with the luminaries who signed the petition, and perhaps I my habit of reading widely rather than concentrating on such subjects as this one has put me at a disadvantage, but I still need to see sound arguments favoring the position of the signatories, and I haven’t seen them.

Davies' "A History of Poland"

I’ve begun Norman Davies, God’s Playground, A History of Poland, Vol 1, “The Origins to 1795. Years ago I was interested in early American Civilizations and recall being outraged over the destruction of early records by Catholic Priests and Monks. What the Communist oppression did in Poland reminded me of that. The Catholics could argue that the history of the Aztecs was demonic, the work of the devil, and needed to be destroyed. In regard to Poland, nothing was produced from 1944 through the collapse of the USSR that did not correspond to the Communist Party Line. The Communists assumed, as did the Catholics before them, that everything that did not support their cause was irrelevant if not counterproductive.

In Davies chapter 1, he discusses the various histories of Poland prior to his. There was a slight easing after 1960. Davies writes that “The Stalinist nightmare had passed. The air of gloom and shame which Stalinism had injected into everything connected with Poland’s independent past, was being dispelled.” But Communistic thinking still had a stranglehold on the writing of Polish History. On page 18 Davies writes, “. . . the respectable face of history-writing in the People’s Republic was irreparably scarred by the detailed revelations of an official censor who defected to the West in 1977 and who took a complete set of the Censorship Office’s directives with him. . . Publishers were required to submit an annual publishing plan for approval in advance. They were then required to submit every approved title for scrutiny and to incorporate all the censor’s textual changes before printing. No undesirable author or subject could find a way into print, and no approved text could ever contain unapproved material. . . the Black Book of Polish Censorship showed beyond question that the controls were far more extensive than anyone outside the Party elite could have suspected. For the directives were not merely concerned with negative methods of suppressing or limiting information. First and foremost, they constituted a huge body of pre-emptive instructions which laid down what facts were to be known, what interpretations were to be preferred, what aspects were to be emphasized, and which people were to be praised. In the large historical section, for example, much space was allotted to the American Bi-Centennial of 1976. Here, the Polish censors gave instructions to the effect that ‘the American Revolution’ was to be presented in a positive light; that Americans were to be congratulated on their achievement; and that the overthrow of British imperialism by the colonists was to be lauded. The progressive role of Poles, such as Kosciuszko and Pulaski, was to be stressed, as was the reactionary role of German (Hanoverian) redcoats. At the same time great care was to be taken to keep history apart from current affairs. Polish readers were not to be told that workers in the USA belonged to free trade unions, drove cars, ate steaks, and generally enjoyed a standard of living unimaginable in the Soviet Block.”

On page 19 Davies writes, “Once the regimes of the Soviet Bloc had collapsed, a whole academic industry of dubious sovietological studies, which had fed off these regimes, collapsed with them.” However Communist repression had been stultifying. “. . . no native star had been hiding its light under a bushel only to blaze forth as soon as the political restrictions were lifted.”

Davies praises the work inspired by Polish professor Jerzy Kloczowski, but it may be that even today, the best history of Poland remains the work of the British historian Norma Davies.

Radical Islam must not be tolerated by Moscow

http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2009/09/window-on-eurasia-north-caucasus_23.html

The Above article, written by Paul Goble, is entitled “North Caucasus Descending into Unrestricted ‘Civil War’ Where No One is Safe, Moscow Paper Warns.” I’ll quote from the article and comment below:

“. . . The recent increase in attacks on religious leaders and ordinary citizens in the North Caucasus, the editors of “Nezavisimaya gazeta” say, highlights a dangerous new development in that region: the increasing role of radical extremists who do not feel themselves limited by any moral considerations.

“. . . Terrorism in the region . . . has moved into ‘a religious-political phase’ . . . This change . . . is reflected in the murder last Sunday of Ismail Bostanov, the deputy head of the Muslim Spiritual Directorate (MSD) of Karachayevo-Cherkessia and Stavropol kray, and in the decision of Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov to pull down a mosque bearing the name of one of his earlier opponents Dzhabrail Yamadayev.”

“ . . . in recent times such attacks are taking place with stupefying regularity . . . [and] of the entrance into the ranks of the militants of ‘a large group of radically inclined young people who decide on their own [rather than relying on religious authorities] who is right and who is guilty.’

“What that means . . . is that what is now going on in the North Caucasus is ‘not only a religious conflict between supporters of radical Islam and those who support traditional views on the faith’ but also a reflection of the end of any ‘protected’ zones in the ‘hot republics’ of the region.

“In short . . . there are now ‘no limits’ in the North Caucasus regarding who may be attacked and no place where anyone there can feel safe.”

“. . . today . . . suicide bombers . . . are not concerned about the number of dead be they soldiers, civilians or Muslim leaders.

“This trend, the paper says, bears ‘obvious signs of a civil war, a war which has passed into a new phase’ and which is occurring in Chechnya . . . In that republic too, ‘the militants are becoming more active,’ and ‘the civil war is a political stage of the conflict.’

“What Moscow should do ‘in order that the North Caucasus will cease to be called a bubbling cauldron remains an open one,” because ‘at the federal level, there is only one order – immediately liquidate the militants. And that is not happening.’ Instead, their number is increasing, and their attacks are becoming more unlimited.
Indeed, the paper notes, there is widespread disagreement among the expert community. Some analysts say that what is taking place is a response to ‘the excessive application of force by law-enforcement agencies.’ Others say that in the North Caucasus, there is ‘a well-organized terrorist network with which the siloviki are not capable of coping.’

“And still a third group, the paper notes, ‘are talking about a religious war’ which has arise as the role of traditional Islam has declined and ‘the influence of radical Islam has grown.’ Each of these has something to say, the paper suggests, but even taken together, they do not provide a complete understanding or comprehensive guide to action.

“But what is most unclear of all . . is just what the Russian powers that be in Moscow think regarding what is going on. Up to now, the impression has been that in the North Caucasus, they are simply living ‘in hope that everything [there] will sort itself out on its own’ – a hope, the paper implies, that appears increasingly a vain one.”

COMMENT:

The problem being described by the editors of the Nezavisimaya gazeta is the same problem being faced in many parts of the world. Russia as well as the West is crippling itself by refusing to abandon that Liberal-Democratic ideal: Toleration. Fascism and Communism in the 20^th Century were so intolerant that there has been a reaction in the Liberal-Democratic world – a reaction that implies that all things, every idea, every political position, every religious viewpoint must be tolerated. Radical Islam arose at just the right time for them. They have been given a free pass to engage in the most heinous of crimes and because all the rest of us are tolerant. We are so tolerant we refuse to do enough to stop them. We make excuses for them. Just as Moscow is hoping the problem will resolve itself, so are the governments in Europe hoping that time will soften the radicalism that they find so troubling.

Where are the Russian philosophers, the “intellectuals” to put this matter in perspective? Toleration of evil is not acceptable. Surely we would all agree to that simple statement. We do not need to define Evil exhaustively. We need merely to agree to assume that this particular phenomenon, Radical Islam, is Evil. Next we need to take steps that follow from that assumption. If it is evil then those who promote it must be stopped. Create laws outlawing Radical Islam. Define what it is and what it is not and then take all necessary steps to oppose it.

What grounds does Moscow have for believing the problem presented by Radical Islam will “sort itself out”? Isn’t that what we thought prior to World War II. Haven’t Russians and others criticized the US (justifiably so) for assuming the problem presented by Fascism would “sort itself out” without American involvement?

At what point do we decide that Radical Islam isn’t going to sort itself out and that action must be taken? We don’t seem to have such a “point.” We have drawn no line in the sand. We have no direction. Radical Islam is still running rampant wherever it wants to go. Sayyid Qutb urged that Mohammad’s Jihad must be continued, that a “true” Muslim must understand that Islam will be in a state of war (Jihad) until the infidels (that’s us, Moscow) are killed or converted to Islam.

If you want to be “tolerant,” be tolerant of traditional Islam, but under no circumstances be tolerant of Radical Islam.

RE: Russia still not reconciled to loss of Empire

Eric Yost, wrote the following in response to http://www.lawrencehelm.com/2009/09/russia-still-not-reconciled-to-loss-of.html . I have a few additional comments below:

Lawrence wrote: How pathetic you [Russia] are if all that can be said w about your future is that you will continue to sell raw materials to the West and Weapons to the West's enemies.

Two strains have long been prevalent in Russian thought, and were well established in the 19th

century: one is the "Slavophile" recognition of unique Russian identity, as crossroads between Asia and Europe (Lev Tolstoy); the other, just as significant, is the European identity, that Russia is the eastern extent of Europe (Ivan Turgenev).

To my understanding, both, acting together (Pushkin), constitute the Russian identity.

Consider: Russia is traditionally Christian

(European) but uniquely so in its Eastern Orthodox tradition (Slavophile); Russian classical music is European (Glinka, Tchaikovsky, Shostakovitch) but uniquely so in its Slavophile composers (Khachaturian, Schedrin, Sviridov). For a particular example, in pianism, Russia is European, but uniquely so (the Russian school of piano technique). Another example: in the 20th century, Russia produced, as a group, the strongest chess players. Chess is itself a hybrid of an Asian game that was refined and codified by Europeans.

Historically, Russia resisted both the Teutonic knights (Nevsky) and the severe Mongol invasion.

My sense is that Russian identity, at least in its high culture, is part of both worlds yet not a complete member of either. This is a lonely place and calls for a great sense of balance. When Russians feel they are respected, I believe they can achieve this balance, as they have done throughout history. However, when they feel condescended to or belittled, Russians always veer to an extreme Slavophilism or extreme Westernism

-- depending on who is condescending or belittling them.

Granted, this is cultural analysis and has little to do with the Russian power elite, who seek crises and global political instability to drive up the price of oil. But it speaks to something deeper -- a sentiment upon which the Russian power elite rely in order to rule. Putin knows this as well as Stalin did.

All the best,

Eric

Lawrence’s Comments:

I often have something like this in mind when I write about Russia’s modern woes. I’m a great admirer of Dostoevsky, having read two of his novels (The Brothers Karamazov & Crime and Punishment) several times, and probably all of them at least once. I read Tolstoy’s War and Peace and Anna Karenina probably twice each. And I read a number of lesser Russian writers but no one quite captured my imagination as much as Dostoevsky and Tolstoy – unless it was Mikhail Sholokhov.

As to music, I’m not the aficionado that Eric is, but at one time, probably the same time I was reading Sholokhov, I was listening to Shostakovich quite a lot, and while I came to imagine he was repeating himself too much to listen to as regularly as I had been, I have never tired of Tchaikovsky.

I appreciated, perhaps still do, Wassily Kandinsky and read and appreciated (in my misguided youth) the Russian spiritualism of H. Blavatsky.

This is all to say that I agree with Eric’s argument that Russia is essentially European. I may have even suggested that in the past, but Michael Kuznetsov is supported by recent articles in rejecting that suggestion. Modern Russia believes itself to be, and wants others to recognize it as distinct from European Civilization. My own belief that it is not is weakened by Samuel P. Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations. In the first part of that work, Huntington presents the commonly accepted conclusions of social scientists that the “Orthodox Civilization” is distinct from the “Western Civilization.”

I discussed this a bit with Kuznetsov at some point. I find it difficult to accept that the Orthodox and Latin Civilizations are “distinct” from Western Civilization. We have similar, if not the same, roots. We revere Christianity. I am not convinced that Huntington’s “clashes” need to go on amongst these three “Civilizations.”

Nevertheless, when Russia finally recovered from the after effects of the demise of the USSR, it made it known that it did not appreciate the EU swallowing up Russia’s “near abroad” neighbors. It invoked a 19^th century “sphere of interest” rationale. The EU, however, believed itself to have gone way beyond such thinking. Not only could it not revert to 19^th century thinking, it thought it positively dangerous to do so. Surely, they believed, that sort of thinking contributed to the disastrous wars of the 20^th century.

Russia, of course has not threatened war with the EU or the US over the EU’s and NATO’s acceptance of these Near Abroad nations, but Russia has been grumbling. As the articles I’ve been quoting have indicated, Russia doesn’t like what is going on inside the Federation with its minorities, and outside with Near Abroad nations lusting after membership in the EU and NATO.

Eric mentioned the “High Culture” of the Russian intelligentsia. My first thought upon reading that (and I don’t mean this to be a criticism of Eric’s argument, merely a bit of “free association”) was that it seemed in a sense comparable to “Traditional Muslims.” That is, whenever there is a tendency to consider all Islam as being Radical, some will invoke the “Traditional Muslims.” Not all Muslims are Radical, they will argue. In fact only a few are Radical and the “vast majority” of Muslims are “Traditional,” and willing to live and let live. I have argued against that belief because the evidence for the existence of these “Traditional Muslims” is scanty. Where are they, I have on more than one occasion demanded to know? If they exist, they are either living in Europe or the US or are being very quiet.

Eric isn’t voicing an opinion on how influential or prevalent the High Culture of the Russian Intelligentsia is, but I would be interested in hearing more on that subject. I’ve been quoting Russian Journalists who in some sense may be part of that Intelligentsia, I don’t know that any of them are. And if philosophers, novelists and poets are speaking out today in Russia about Russia’s current problems, I have not encountered them.