“I don't reproach the Russians for being what they are; what I blame them for is their desire to appear to be what we are. They are much less interested in being civilized than in making us believe them so. They would be quite content to be in effect more awful and barbaric then they actually are, if only others could thereby be made to believe them better and more civilized”

-- Marquis de Custine, “Russia in 1839”

A mindful international traveler should be aware of the risks and dangers associated with visiting foreign countries. There's pickpocketing, mugging, infectious deceases and tortuous bureaucracy. Russia is not exception. Planning a trip, and even more so when considering relocation or doing business in Russia, one should consider the relevant risks and prepare to face them, starting with choosing reliable travel agent and ending with getting one's travel documents in order. The following guide is designed to prepare those with such intentions, and may be seen as a bit critical or conservative, but it is in fact quite realistic. The country at issue is infamous for lawlessness. Lack of attention to local requirements may just lead to increased chances of experiencing the reasons for that infamy, which could be unfortunate, unnecessary or even tragic.

Russia is hardly a featured destination promoted by many travel guides or the subject of much promotional advertising, and in fact regularly vies for many titles in the league of the “world's worsts” often finding itself near the very top of that dubious heap. Examples of several of these instances are given in this overview.

Violent Crime

Russia has got one of the highest murder rates in the World. According to the latest available statistics (PDF) on Russia from the UN crime watchdog, in 2000 the country held 5th place among the most murder-friendly countries, with 20 persons out of every 100,000 killed intentionally every year. A significant portion of the Russian press is permanently dedicated to news about violent crime. Robberies and homicides play prominent role in the lives and in the deaths of Russians. However, as the capacity of the press is limited, only the most significant cases get coverage, with most of the attention going to mass-murders, acts of terrorism, assassinations as well as attacks and accidents involving prominent people and celebrities.

Every year serial killers with body counts reaching dozens are discovered. One of the most prominent of them is Alexander Pichushkin (see his Wiki entry), charged, convicted sentenced to life in prison for murdering 48 persons in Moscow -- with his actual toll said to be significantly higher. Of course, it's not just serial killers; gangs terrorize the population too. Crime in Russia includes everything you have seen in the action films. While at the lower levels the country is infested with street thugs, drug dealers and armed robbers, higher profile groups, such as gangs of professional assassins long ago became part of the Russian landscape. Russia is infamous internationally for political killings, particularly the assassination of prominent opposition journalists, but on the local level it is mostly businessmen and local government officials who are preyed upon.

One such criminal group originates in the town of Kingisepp just several kilometers away from the Estonian border, the so called Kingisepp gang. Over the past decade the gang has been officially connected to assassinations of dozens and dozens of businessmen and business managers (see Newsru.com in Russian). In 2007 members of the group were convicted of assassinating 6 business executives, with that number allegedly reflecting only a small part of their actual operations. The group was able to function without punishment because of its connections. The prosecution claims one of the key clients of the gang was Russian Federation Council member (similar to the U.S. Senate) Igor Izmestyev (see Compromat.ru in Russian), now under investigation for his alleged involvement. Members of Russian anti-narcotics police were also convicted of aiding the gang (see Newsru.com in Russian). Most other assassinations, though, remain mysterious to this day.

Other sensational incidents of crime are prevalent as well, for example kidnapping, on which the Moscow Times reported last week:

University students traditionally celebrate Jan. 25, or St. Tatyana's Day, by getting drunk while police turn a blind eye to their excesses on the last day of the winter session. But one student from a prestigious Moscow institute spent the holiday chained up in a hole in the ground before police freed her from kidnappers. Police freed the 20-year-old woman, a student at the Moscow State Institute of International Affairs, or MGIMO, from captivity Saturday after she was kidnapped two days earlier outside the institute in southwest Moscow, city police spokesman Igor Tsirulnikov said Tuesday. The suspects placed the girl in a hole 2 meters deep, 3 meters wide and 4 meters long that they dug in a service bay sunk into the floor of the garage, where they kept her chained up while they called her father -- a "state official" -- and demanded $60,000 in ransom money. The suspects -- Rodion Sinelshchikov, Alexander Chernykh and Dmitry Komrakov -- staked out students at MGIMO because it is one of the choice universities for children of the country's political and business elite, so their parents are able to pay ransoms, Tsirulnikov said.

Although scores of foreign visitors fall prey of theft and violence, crime against tourists does not receive special attention unless it is outstanding, as was the case of recent beatings of British football fans in Moscow (see in English: Kommersant and BBC News). Specific dangers tourists can face in Russia include police harassment and, provided the visitors are unfortunate enough to have the necessary facial features, violent attacks by neo-Nazi and skinhead groups.

Law Enforcement

you decide that the prime source of danger in Russia is crime, let me tell you about those charged with protecting law and order. It is widely known that Russia is not just one of the most criminal, but one of the most corrupt countries in the World. The scale of the problem is so enormous that this issue, unlike some others, is recognized as serious one even at the top level of the country's secretive and defiant leadership. It is not without reason "Transparency International," the global corruption watchdog, ranks Russia among world's worst countries in societal corruption. Some African and many Latin American countries routinely considered as "corrupt" are in fact more honest than Russia. Experts estimate that the Russian black market and bribes related to it attain a share of GDP of almost astronomic proportions, with many layers of society and government drawing their main income from such shadowy activities.

The problem is not limited merely to bribes, extortion and other garden variety corrpution; the situation is much more sinister. To get an idea of the true extent of what is going on, let's turn to public opinion surveys. Opinion polls indicate that it is not the criminals the people of Russia fear the most, but Russian police themselves (curiously in Russia police is officially called "militia," милиция, a word typically associated in the West with an army). Russia's inhabitants (see these news sources in Russian: 1, 2) consider their police the most dangerous organization among the forces of organized crime in Russia. Russians characterize their police in following terms (Public Opinion Foundation, in Russian):

"Тот же преступник, но в форме и под защитой закона"

"They are the same criminals, but under protection of the law"

"среди них - сплошь преступники, которые насилуют, крадут, убивают безнаказанно"

"Criminals throughout the force, they rape, steal and kill at will"

"часть криминала"

"Part of criminal elements"

"бандит по сравнению с милиционером - святой человек, даже у бандита есть какие-то обязанности перед своим патроном, а у милиционера - вообще нет".

"Compared to a member of militia a bandit is a saint, at least he's got some responsibilities before his superiors, militia member has none"

73 per cent of Russians believed in 2005 that they could become victims of police force despotism, while only 4 per cent completely ruled out this possibility, according to a poll by "Public Verdict Foundation." As much as my personal opinion can be of interest, the 4 per cent confidence figure seems awfully close to the number of law enforcers and their associates in the country. One can watch videos on police force brutality if so inclined.

Law Enforcement Case Study: Rape

If you think "robberies, rape and murder" being committed by police forces is an exaggeration, think again. It is not without good reason that Amnesty International calls the situation in Russian police stations a "litany of horror," citing "regular beatings rape and torture" according to BBC News. The Russian press is full of reports on the criminal activities of the police force. I wouldn’t attempt covering the full range of it in this overview, turning instead to one of them, rape. In certain regions rape seems to have become almost like police official business. Unfortunately for tourists Moscow are not excluded. One can read pieces like one found on Utro.ru regarding policeman charged with raping and robbing dozens of women in Moscow. This is just one example, the sordid and shocking details of which I will decline to repeat. Those with an interest may explore them.

Two years ago the media exploded in stories about gangs of Moscow metro (subway) police engaging in regular rapes. According to the reports of the press “normally” Moscow police limit their sexual prety to prostitutes and immigrants, but by 2004 more and more cases of mainstream women being raped emerged. The activities of a "police rape ring" or "rape club" were chronicled, as they engaged in picking random females for rape in Moscow metro, by human right activist German Galdetsky and his associates. Soon after this he was taken out of equation by a gunshot to the head (sources in English 1, 2; in Russian 3). The scandal faded as Moscow police responded to the accusation decisively, namely by cracking down on human rights groups who were reporting the news.

Despite everything said above the most visible and widespread criminal activity of the police remains bribes and extortion. The participants see immigrants from Central Asian and Caucasian countries as their primary source of income, with tourists left intact if they have their papers in full order. This conclusion is supported by message boards and Internet forums by travelers with experiences in Russia. Unfortunately, foreign tourists are also usually "left alone" when it comes to their reports of crimes being committed against them.

Various online guides are available to laymen who may need to deal with interactions involving the Russian police (see in Russian), but it is generally assumed a simply negotiated "donation" will help to soften the strict eye of the law in most cases.

Health and Disease

It's not a secret that the Russian habit of heavy drinking adds to the general unhealthiness of the population. For a tourist, of course, this should not be a problem in itself, though there are always some “buts” to consider. Just one drink of unchecked quality can create problems for an incautious tourist. Some scientists estimate that fake spirits, a cheaper and more unhealthy replacement for legal spirits, cause up to one third of the deaths in the country (see Demoscope.ru, in Russian). Acute cases of alcohol poisoning can dwarf the impact of many known infectious diseases, with alcohol emergency situations sometimes declared in the federal regions. Imagine a horror movie about an unknown virus sweeping the country, with an army of doctors cordoning off the area, replace "virus" with cheap vodka and you won’t find yourself too far in the realm of Sci-Fi where Russia is concerned. For example, one piece (in English) reports that "dozens of Russians have died and more than 1,000 received hospital treatment in a wave of alcohol poisoning sweeping the country" and tells about emergency situations declared throughout several regions, while another piece (in Russian) gives some more details from ground zero in three Russian regions becoming catastrophe zones because of massive poisoning in bad spirits.

As the German publication Die Weft puts it:

"Doch Schwarzbrenner sind immer noch ein großes Problem. Experten schätzen, dass der Inhalt jeder dritten Flasche illegal ist. Die Ärmsten greifen sogar zu hochprozentigem Badewannenreiniger."

"Fake vodka is still a major problem. Experts estimate that every third bottle in circulation is illegal. The poorest people even drink high alcohol content bathtub cleaners"

According to the German paper, Russians hold first place in the world when judged by the amount of alcohol consumed, with each inhabitant imbibing 17 liters of pure spirits annually, both clean and illegal. A foreigner attempting to introduce himself to this lifestyle would surely find himself shortly in need of urgent medical aid.

Medical aid

As cold, northern country, Russia doesn’t have many threatening or easily communicable infectious diseases. But if you get sick and must see a doctor don’t hold high expectations for your recovery. As a Western travel guide puts it:

“Medical care is usually far below western standards, with severe shortages of basic medical supplies. Access to the few quality facilities that exist in major cities usually requires cash payment at western rates upon admission."

In other words, if you are unlucky, you may die of lack of aspirin in a Russian hospital.

A summary of some of the worst examples of medical treatment can be found in the reportings of the Russian major portal Newsru.com, with reference to the German journal Focus. In short, many doctors in Russia have little respect for professional ethics and are either unprofessional or won’t stop at killing or mutilating their patients if it brings in more money than keeping them alive and healthy. For example there are media reports (see Newsru.com in Russian) about doctors in Khabarovsk who are under investigation for killing 56 of their patients for the purpose of organ removal and sale as well as for cutting out organs from the bodies of hundreds of more patients who were lucky enough to be released alive. One should not think that this phenomenon is limited to remote provincial locations; one can read (see Newsru.com in Russian) about organ removals from live patients in Moscow as well. Here, again, medics are under official investigation for their activities, having been caught red-handed. In particular case a patient A. T. Orekhov was discovered by the police during an anti-organ trade “dawn raid,” in act of organ removal, with the patient's guts lying open. Mr Orekhov, a victim of an accident, was already prepared to be registered as “dead” by the medics. But as police and police medical experts were looking at Mr Orekhov’s body, the body looked back at the police, figuratively speaking. He died shortly after (see an overview of the Orekhov’s case in English). As a traveler you should take care of assuring the medics you can pay them. If you don’t want to end up as Mr Orekhov did, that is.

Skinheads and Nazi groups

In this domain too Russia has a prominent position. Russia's racist and neo-Nazi groups are recognized as world's strongest, with 50 thousand fanatical members. A report by the San Francisco Chronicle states that nearly half the world's skinheads live in Russia." Last week, the Moscow Times reported that race crimes increased 13% in Russia last year.

Not only are the Russian Nazis numerous, but their cruelty is legendary. Their second favorite activity after greeting each other with Nazi salutes is beating up people who appear to hail from Central Asia, Caucasian republics of the former USSR, former African satellite countries, former East Asian allied countries and Jews. They don't have the habit of checking passports first, but rely on looks. Therefore a traveler with facial features like the people of the above mentioned countries should take good, very good care. Better still, consider not going. The Russian public remains somewhat unaware of these events, learning only about sensational incidents that involve celebrities, such as Zair Tutov, the singer and holder of the "People's Artist" designation, a high Russuan honor, and of the position of minister of culture in the North Caucus Region, who was beaten famously up by skinheads (see this overview in Russian).

Foreign embassies may file official protests to the Russian government demanding protection of their citizens all they want, as does Amnesty International and the United Nations’ refugees body, but little is achieved on positive side.

Some of the more cruel cases of Neo-Nazi assaults have included:

1. Murdering anti-Nazi activists such as anti-Nazi expert Nikolai Girenko. See the overview of Mr Girenko’s case in Time Magazine as well as this overview (PDF) of attacks on human rights activist in St Petersburg by the World Organization Against Torture.

2. Beheading immigrant workers and posting the video of their execution on the internet (BBC News). Warning: Very bloody.

3. Capturing a woman looking like an immigrant in the street, dragging her away to a cemetery, cutting chunks of her flesh while she is alive, cooking the meat over the fire and eating the meat. No kidding. See the full story in Newsru.com, in Russian.

4. Instantaneous gang-style attacks on pedestrians in the streets of major cities in broad day light, including the killings of 5 and 9 year-old children (San Francisco Chronicles, BBC News, video).

5. Pogroms. BBC News reports that "an estimated 300 skinheads attacked market places in Moscow two years ago, killing three people." See also a video on skinhead attacks in Russia (video). Or the video on the pogrom in the city of Kondopoga (video).

6. Advancement in the neo-Nazi hierarchy ranks according to the number of foreigners "executed." The most prominent known case is 18 year old Artur Ryno, who is under investigation for murdering 37 persons, both foreigners and people from ethnic minorities in Moscow (see Russia Today in English).

But how about police, don't they do something? Of course they do, as demonstrated by the case of Magomet Tolboev (Wiki). He was beaten up in the street of the capital by the police, for being ethnic Chechen (see Newsru.com in Russian). He was stopped for a routine document check (“face control”). With the worst ethnic case confirmed, the cops went nuts on him. Unlike thousands of others Tolboev’s story became a scandal, because Mr. Tolboev is a highly decorated Soviet test pilot and astronaut, holder of the title of “Hero of Russia” and adviser to a member of the parliament.

Finally, one should not relay too heavily on the idea that getting into trouble with skinheads would create sympathy within the rest of the population. The share of public support for the skinheads’ chauvinist ideas goes to 61 per cent (Time Magazine). Therefore what can actually happen is that instead of helping a victim the people around would rather help the attackers with an extra kick or two.

Terrorism

In the last decade terrorist attacks have claimed hundreds of lives in mainland Russia (the number would go into thousands if the Caucasian region of the country was added). Under the leadership of president Vladimir Putin the country saw hostage taking incidents with probably the world record for fatalities during so-called rescue operations. Because these events are as gruesome as they are well publicized, I’d leave this subject out of this overview.

It should be mentioned though, that foreign tourists too get killed and injured during terrorist attacks in Russia. For example, in one of such crisis, Moscow's Dubrovka theater siege, 9 out of total of 129 hostages killed by the poison gas released by the police were foreign nationals. A Wikipedia article lists a specific detail of the incident. According to Wiki the terrorists, who probably wanted to minimize their negative media coverage in the West, offered to unilaterally release the foreign hostages, but the negotiators refused to allow the foreigners to leave. To explain this decision, one might reference the foregoing section.

Lack of safety and catastrophes

Deadly accidents and catastrophes are everyday affairs in Russia as most of the country’s infrastructure is inherited from the times of the USSR and hasn’t seen any significant repairs since. There are accidents in the mines, gas explosions, building collapses and much more. Some of the most troubling to the authorities are breakdowns of central heating systems in apartment blocks, as they happen every year in Sibirian cities in winter, with outside temperature in dozens of degrees below the freezing point. These accident have sometimes lead to riots and clashes with the police.

Bloodier however are the cases of airplane crashes. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reports:

"If you're planning a plane trip in Russia this summer, you might want to think again. A study released this week by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) shows that Russia and other former Soviet countries are the world's most dangerous places for air travel"

Reuters seconds:

"Russia remains the most dangerous place to fly despite global improvements that made 2006 the safest year on record, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) reported on Tuesday. Russia and other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) had an accident rate 13 times the global average, IATA said."

"In the CIS the rate was 8.6 accidents per million flights, or twice the rate of Africa, where the level fell to 4.31 from 9.2."

As opposed to air travel, trains are safer on the operational side, though they are bombed more often by the terrorists. Road traffic can be characterized as chaotic and very dangerous with Russia competing with other C.I.S. countries for the title of the country with the highest rate of deadly car accidents per capita in Europe.

Despite the obvious lack of modernization of the old Soviet infrastructure, the situation can actually be seen as even worse in the case of many newly erected facilities and buildings, constructed without competent, honest supervision. Newsru.com reports in a story titled “Experts: living in Moscow skyscrapers is extremely dangerous” on the unsound engineering design of most new housing structures in Moscow. According to the report, Moscow's skyscrapers, hundreds of which were and are erected at an amazing speed, are unsafe. Safety experts warn that living in one of Moscow numerous newer apartyment towers is dangerous. Caverns are constantly forming in the wet soil beneath the structures, with cracks appearing here and there as the first sign of the danger. To make the case worse, the skyscrapers aren't equipped for evacuation in case of possible emergencies, with Russian Emergency Situations Minister Sergei Shoigu calling existing staircases inadequate. To have a sense of the situation take a look at some fresh photographs taken under the foundation of one of Moscow’s new "elite" apartment housings by a Moscow blogger.

Examples of deadly construction accidents include the collapse of an arch in Transvaal Park (an aqua park) in Moscow in 2004 (Wiki), which killed 28 guests of the facility and the collapse of the roof of Moscow’s Basmanny market (Wiki) in 2006. Erected in 19074 and thereafter neglected, 66 people were killed in the accident inside the Moscow-owned market when it collapsed.

The Army

Foreign visitors are largely safe from the danger of being drafted into the Russian army, which otherwise has dreadful reputation (see report by Human Rights Watch) with scores of draftees killed and mutilated every year. See photographs of private Andrei Sychev, before and after or videos on hazing. The fear of being drafted into the army is so strong that only 9.5 per cent of males of draft age are actually conscripted into the army, as revealed in 2004 by then minister of defense Sergey Ivanov (see Lenta.ru in Russian). According to the minister, this figure, 9.5 per cent is a "world lowest rate" and it is several times lower than the number Russia was pulling into the army in the beginning of the 90s. Young people and their parents stop at nothing to escape the draft with many Internet forums dedicated to exchange of best practices. Thus the army relies on the peasantry, representatives of ethnic minorities as well as of non-mainstream groups now forming the bulk of soldiery.

While soldiers of many armed forces are accused of using prostitutes for their needs, Russian soldiers are in addition accused of being prostitutes. Indeed, the Russian media widely reports on male prostitution in the army with underpaid officers forcing the soldiers subject to their authority engage in acts of homosexual sex, with their officers as pimps. According to the media (see Polit.ru in Russian) soldiers are widely forced and coerced to prostitute themselves en masse. Advertisements for army sex services are found on the Internet’s gay forums.

According to the media, in Russia even a slave trade in draftees is possible. Drafted soldiers sometimes disappear from their barracks. These cases are normally blamed on escapism. However, cases exist when the soldiers later appear in the mountainous areas of the Russian North Caucasus, mainly in Chechnya, as farm slaves (slavery is common in that area), instead of their homes, accusing superiors for selling them. Press reports on these cases include this opposition site.

When I said that foreigners are "largely protected" from the threat the army poses to the local male population I meant that a foreign citizen is unlikely to end up as a soldier in the Russian army. But theoretically it is possible. The press, including daily Komsomolskaya Pravda reported in December about a new wave of young male citizens snatched on the streets of Moscow. Kidnappings were done by the police to fulfill the annual draft plan with the year’s end approaching. This is a periodic occasion in Russia when the police is out looking for men of draft age to force into conscription. Foreign citizens can be drafted into the army as well if they lack proper IDs. A foreigner lacking proper ID in Russia is in trouble despite his nationality.

On political side-effects of this military environment see this article by Washington Post.

Other Army-related threats include getting too close to its bases of operation, given the 'sparanoia towards foreigners. Or accidentally running into army representatives, anywhere. Especially bad timing would be on and around the annual celebrations of the “Airborne Troopers Day” (2nd of August) when there are violent attacks by veterans of the special airborne forces on the general population. Attacks by celebrating veterans mainly concentrate on males “too civilian” in appearance, wearing glasses for instance, and people looking like they are of ethnically non-Russian (Caucasus mountains or Central Asian) origin. An overview of the situation is provided by Russian Muslims portal (“Airborne Troopers Day: Survival Guide for Persons of ‘Muslim Nationality’”, in Russian). On positive side it should be mentioned that the airborne veterans don’t seem to actually kill their victims, just severely beat them up with the police pursuing its usual non-intervention policy. There’s no actual advice in the article on how to survive an encounter, however.

Chechnya and North Caucasus

I intended this overview to be based on and accurately reflect the facts in mainland Russia, thus not addressing the area of North Caucasus. But a word to the wise may not come amiss. From Wikitravel:

“WARNING: Chechnya is most emphatically NOT a tourist destination and not safe for independent travel or sightseeing. Most foreign governments advise against non-essential travel. Those visiting for business, research, or international aid purposes should consult with their organization and seek expert guidance before planning a trip. If you must go, see War zone safety.“

1. Don't trust people who look like they may be criminals
(Hard to follow as it could cover large part of the population)

3. Always have your documents in order
(Think of a country famous for its bureaucracy, to get a sense
of Russia multiply by two – chances are you’ll miss a
document or two)

4. Move in groups, try not to get separated from the others
(There are always places to get you when you are alone, like public
toilets or if you are smoker.)

5. Avoid medical facilities not in the Embassy-recommended list,
private ones are marginally better than government ones
(As opposed to public hospitals private clinics will put you to
rest with equipment and pain killers.)

6. Exercise caution eating and (especially) drinking
(It's a lottery unless you brought your own food field tests)

7. If inside, check escape roots in case of emergency
(Absence of escape roots in the building is what
the Emergency Ministry officials, remember?)

8. Be careful upon seeing a celebration with
music and happy people
(If it is a gathering of army veterans chances are they can easily outrun you)

9. Follow traffic signs and regulations
(There are scores of pedestrian victims who did nothing wrong.)

10. Go somewhere else
(Likely the only advice that counts if your
prime concern is personal survival)

The Moscow Times reports:

President Vladimir Putin ordered Russia's domestic intelligence service on Wednesday to increase its vigilance against attempts by foreigners to interfere in the March presidential election. Putin has portrayed domestic liberal opponents, who accuse him of reviving autocratic rule, as Western puppets, and he wants a smooth transition of power to his chosen successor, Dmitry Medvedev. "You must step up efforts to receive timely information about any attempts to interfere in our domestic affairs," Russian news agencies quoted Putin as telling a meeting of Federal Security Service leaders. "This country is a sovereign state, and we will not allow anyone to manipulate the election campaign from abroad."

Putin's eight years in power have seen strong economic growth and the return of relative stability after a decade of post-Soviet turmoil. Putin, a former KGB spy, has often said Russia's economic and diplomatic resurgence has fuelled envy and opposition in the West. Opinion polls indicate Medvedev will win an overwhelming victory on March 2. Opponents say they are allowed little or no access to the media and suffer from government interference. "The task of all state structures is to make sure that [the polls] are democratic, that there is social and political stability," Putin said. Putin has described the FSB as a "key national institution" and has sharply increased its budget.

On Wednesday he praised the FSB for what he said was its progress in fighting terrorism in Russia. "In past years, the state was not capable of effectively opposing terrorism," Putin said, referring to political turmoil and economic crises in the 1990s. "The number of terrorist acts was incredible and the terrorists' impudence was immense. Now, the number of terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world is on the rise, while their number in Russia drops annually by 70 percent." Putin said the FSB's new task was to make sure corruption and criminality did not disrupt Russia's economic boom. "You should stop corruption and abuse of power, use all your potential to uncover cunning schemes to steal budget funds," he told the FSB leaders.

The Financial Times reports:

Two leading liberal Russian officials yesterday warned that Moscow’s increasingly aggressive foreign policy could damage inward investment, in a rare public show of dissent from Vladimir Putin’s advisers.

Anatoly Chubais, architect of Russia’s 1990s privatisation programme and head of its electricity monopoly, told a Moscow investment conference that Russia’s confrontational approach carried risks in a worsening global economic situation.

“Maybe we should ask ourselves a simple question: How much does our external policy cost Russia? We might be able to pay the price in a good world economic situation, but can we continue to pay the price now?” Mr Chubais said. “We can continue to persecute the British Council and demand the closure of its branch in St Petersburg,” he said, referring to the dispute over the British cultural body. “But we cannot make peace with this.”

Alexei Kudrin [pictured above], finance minister and a deputy prime minister, warned in the same forum, organised by Troika Dialog: “Our dependence on global economic ties, on our exports, is felt so strongly that in the nearest future we need to adjust our foreign policy goals to guarantee stable investment.”

The comments appeared to reflect deepening divisions within the government as competing factions jostle for position in advance of presidential elections in March. Russia’s foreign policy has become increasingly hawkish toward the west as Mr Putin, the president, has revived cold war practices, such as long-haul sorties by bombers, and clashed with the UK in disputes, including the row over the 2006 murder in London of Alexander Litvinenko. Dmitry Medvedev, considered favourite for the presidency and Mr Putin’s preferred successor, is seen by analysts as more western-friendly than other potential candidates. But it is unclear whether his emergence will bring serious policy changes.

Mr Kudrin told the forum that Russia’s trade surplus of $135bn (€91bn, £68bn) could disappear within two or three years as imports rise. Mr Chubais said it could disappear quicker if the global economy deteriorated. Speaking later to reporters, however, Mr Kudrin toned down his remarks, saying there were “no serious mistakes in our [foreign] policy”. “Russia is just defending its interests,” he said.

● Europe’s leading election watchdog has warned it will cancel its monitoring mission of Russia’s presidential elections on March 2 – just weeks after it boycotted the country’s parliamentary poll – unless observers can start work next week. The election arm of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe yesterday said that it wanted permission to send a core team of 20 observers to Russia next week. The Russian authorities have said observers cannot arrive before February 28 – three days before the poll. Russian election officials insisted the country was complying with international standards and effective monitoring would be “quite possible within the mandate” given to foreign observers.

The Moscow Times also has coverage:

Two of the country's top liberal government officials broke ranks with the Kremlin on Wednesday, calling for a change in the country's increasingly strident foreign policy to ensure a stable platform for investors. Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, the deputy prime minister in charge of economic policy, told an investment conference in Moscow that the government "should adjust [its] foreign policy goals in the nearest future to guarantee stable investment." Kudrin's comments were amplified by Anatoly Chubais, head of state utility Unified Energy System, who criticized Kremlin foreign policy more directly.

Amid the growing instability on global financial markets, the widening diplomatic spat between Moscow and London over the British Council was potentially damaging to business interests, as foreign investment is more crucial than ever, Chubais told the conference, which was organized by Troika Dialog. "Of course, we can continue to fight the British Council further," he told the conference. "But how much does this foreign policy cost Russia?" He added that, as the situation on global markets continued to worsen, the country could no longer afford to alienate its foreign partners and lose business opportunities.

Russia's relations with the West have been battered by a series of high-profile spats, including bitter disputes over U.S. missile-defense plans in Europe and the sovereignty of Kosovo. Diplomatic relations between Russia and Britain, which have been severely strained since Moscow refused to extradite Andrei Lugovoi to face charges in the murder of former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko in London, are arguably at their lowest point since the end of the Cold War.

As well as the political rifts, Western governments and investors have expressed concern over the Kremlin's increasingly assertive energy policy, which has seen British-owned oil majors Shell and BP pressured into ceding control of large energy projects to Gazprom. Russian officials and business leaders have largely refrained from openly criticizing the government in the run-up to March's presidential vote. President Vladimir Putin has endorsed First Deputy Prime Minister and Gazprom chairman Dmitry Medvedev as his preferred successor, effectively ensuring Medvedev's victory in the March 2 poll. Investors have welcomed the prospect of a Medvedev presidency with Putin as prime minister, arguing that it would ensure much-needed stability for investment.

Kudrin said Putin's agreement to serve as prime minister could only bolster the country's economy. "Putin's desire to remain as premier is a very serious stabilizing factor," he told a packed audience of businesspeople in the Gostiny Dvor conference center. A week after the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where global leaders discussed the growing financial crisis on global markets and the prospects of a U.S. recession, Kudrin reiterated the fundamental robustness of the Russian economy. Foreign direct investment reached $47 billion in 2007 alone, the ninth-straight year of growth, Kudrin said. He also raised his estimates for economic growth, saying that the country's economy had grown about 7.8 percent in 2007 and was expected to grow at a rate of 6.5 percent to 7 percent over the next three years.

On the flip side, inflation spiraled out of control toward the end of last year, hitting 11.9 percent, way beyond official targets. Faced with the prospect of popular discontent, the authorities lowered grain export duties, and urged food wholesalers to commit to a price freeze. Economists speaking at the conference urged Russia not to be complacent. Varel Freeman, vice president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, said, "The economy is not on autopilot. "Banks are not immune to contagion -- the price of credit has increased, the availability of liquidity has gone down and people who have liquid resources will invest them in high-grade opportunities," he said. Another speaker at the conference, former Costa Rican president Jose Maria Figueres, argued that Russia was focused on short-term solutions. "Just as I feel very bullish in the short term, I feel very bearish on the long-term," he said. "The Russian economy is based mainly on oil and gas, and has fundamental challenges down the road." Among those challenges, he said, are a dwindling population, poor health, a lack of infrastructure and an underdeveloped education system. His comments were echoed by Joschka Fischer, former German vice chancellor under Gerhard SchrЪder, who urged Russia to invest in a knowledge-based economy, and move away from its reliance on the extractive industries. "You can build an economy on natural resources, but ... modern economies are built on human resources."

Russia has made much of its natural wealth, boasting some $160 billion accumulated in the stabilization fund from excess oil revenues. As of Friday, the stabilization fund will be split into the Reserve Fund and the National Welfare Fund. Kudrin reiterated the government's commitment to investing some of that wealth into financial markets. The National Welfare Fund would have some similarities to a sovereign wealth fund, a concept that has attracted widespread criticism in recent months over fears that some governments could use the funds as a political tool.

The official in Kudrin's ministry who was until recently in charge of the stabilization fund, Deputy Finance Minister Sergei Storchak, remains in pre-trial detention on fraud and embezzlement charges. Investors have expressed concern over Storchak's continued detention, seeing in the case a possible threat to Kudrin's position and to his policy of using the Stabilization Fund to hedge against drastic falls in global demand for oil and gas. As Western economies start to falter, Kudrin said, opportunities are emerging in the East. The move by Asian lenders to come to the rescue of Wall Street banks Citigroup and Merrill Lynch will be a stabilizing factor, Kudrin said, as the shift in economic power moves from West to East. "Money that can't be used in our economy will be taken out and placed [elsewhere]," Kudrin said.

Moscow Through Brown Eyes reports on Russia, the civilized and sophisticated country:

On a recent Saturday evening I sat in semi-darkness at the Piat Zvezd movie theater off metro Novokuznetskaia, observing the crowd that was steadily trickling in for an 8:30pm showing of Ang Lee’s “Lust, Caution” (in Chinese with Russian subtitles). I was curious about the kind of audience the film would draw: artsy types, I reckoned, worldly, kul’turnye. By the time the film was about to start, the seats were nearly all filled. Wow, I said to my friend and fellow movie-goer, Russians are, like, interested in Chinese culture. He gave me an indulgent smile and said, “Do you really think they’re here for that?”

I thought that presenting the film in Chinese with Russian subtitles—as opposed to dubbing it over in Russian—would make for a more authentic viewing experience. Within the first fifteen minutes of the film, however, it was clear that I was wrong. The subtitles were poorly done, not only in terms of their content but also the timing. Although the screen would show one character saying something, the subtitles would show a translation of what a character off-screen said a few seconds ago. This, in addition to the terse, reductive translations, could only have made the film’s cultural content even more befuddling to the Russian audience.

In any case, the Russians in the theater never seemed to take the film or its historical background seriously and repeatedly laughed at parts that I did not think were at all funny. At one point in the story, against the backdrop of war against Japan, Tang Wei’s character Wang Jiazhi acts in a patriotic stage play. Her performance is apparently so powerful that the entire hall is moved to chant in unison, “China will not fall!” At this point, chuckles rippled through the real-life audience. I couldn’t help thinking, if this were a film about World War II in the USSR—the Great Patriotic War, 30 million Soviet deaths, and all that—would they have thought it was so amusing? I felt like I was with a bunch of self-professed Civilized white people watching funny-looking Asian people singing funny songs in their funny-sounding language and having kinky sex. The Russians in the audience snickered during scenes involving Chinese opera singing, they catcalled when Tang Wei first undressed ("Look! Armpit hair!"), and they chatted in stage whispers throughout the film—or made out, in the case of the couple sitting next to me. There was something voyeuristic and Orientalist about the whole viewing experience that was actually kind of offensive.

At first I was too busy being indignant at the audience’s immature reception of the film to form an independent opinion of it. But after considering it some more, I don’t think such a result was entirely unexpected. I do think that particular Russian audience was voyeuristic and Orientalist. But then, the film seems to lend itself to that kind of reaction. Despite the historical context and the portrayal of cosmopolitan Shanghai in the 1930s, the movie wasn't about the war at all. The struggle within the main character’s conscience about whether to betray her country or save her lover never seemed all that compelling. In the end I guess the film really was about the sex, so maybe one can't blame people for watching it for that very reason. There was just too much attention lavished on those scenes to be otherwise. It was about sex as a driving force in human relations and a subject of art—in all its brutality and ecstasy and decadence and whatever else. The historical background was just incidental. For some reason I had expected the film to say something profound about China’s wartime experience. How silly of me.

As for what watching “Lust, Caution” with a group of Russians revealed to me about Russians’ perceptions of China and the Chinese, it’s hard to say—but “China fever” is about the last phrase that comes to mind. Rather, the Russians in the audience reminded me of my elementary school classmates who made fun of my last name—Chu—and the pungent dumplings I carried with me to lunch. Diplomatic rhetoric aside, it will take a lot more than broadcasting television programs to foster cultural understanding. It will take time, a sustained commitment to promoting tolerance more broadly—and better subtitles.

In the Moscow Times, Georgy Bovt exposes Dimitri Medvedev, the cowardly fraud. Wouldn't a real Russian patriot, a real man, want to explain himself to the country, to put it's doubts at ease? Is it that he simply doesn't care about the country, like all Russian rulers, or is it that he's simply too afraid of humiliating himself by speaking? Or is he Putin's lapdog, obediently shutting up when told?

As a presidential candidate, what values and ideas does First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev stand for? According to the latest VTsIOM survey, with only five weeks remaining until the March 8 presidential election, 65 percent of the people still have no idea. And considering that Medvedev's victory was a foregone conclusion from the moment President Vladimir Putin chose him as his successor, I think the word vybory, which means "elections" and, in the singular, "choice," has little relevance to what will take place on March 8. Instead, the word golosovaniye, which means "voting," is a better word to describe the presidential election.

It was no surprise that former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov would not be allowed to register his name on the ballot, and this was clear even before he started to collect his "forged" signatures. Similarly, before presidential candidate Andrei Bogdanov had a single one of his "legitimate" signatures on paper, it was also clear that the Kremlin would allow him to run. Now it will be interesting to see if the two million people who signed his petition to register will actually vote for him.

Of course, the outcome of the presidential election was determined long before it began. The electorate has been left almost entirely in the dark as to the future president's political agenda. And since Medvedev hasn't debated a single rival, he has been able to avoid any difficult or uncomfortable questions -- including, "What the heck is your platform?"

Medvedev's meetings with journalists are meticulously orchestrated beforehand so that he is fed only easy and convenient questions. To have such a cakewalk for an election campaign is the ideal situation for any candidate looking for a guaranteed victory.

Heavily edited news coverage is virtually the only source of information about Medvedev that is available to voters. According to the latest Levada Center poll, the number of voters inclined to choose Medvedev in the election now stands at 82 percent of the electorate, which represents an even higher rating than Putin enjoys.

What a great deal for Medvedev, it would seem. He has a record level of support without having to develop a political program. But, in reality, he has four main problems that will become serious issues for him after he wins the election.

The first is that, as president, the public will at some point demand that he concretely define his positions on a range of issues.

The second problem is that Medvedev has a softer, more intellectual and less macho image than Putin. This is a liability in the minds of many Russians, who prefer the tough-talking style of a strong-armed leader, or even a dictator.

The third problem is that Medvedev will have to get his on-the-job presidential training with Putin close by as prime minister. The duo will have to coordinate all of their actions by agreeing beforehand who will make which statements and by preassigning their roles in a range of situations. This may be tricky for the Medvedev-Putin pair to pull off because Russians are not accustomed to this kind of power sharing in the Kremlin. On the rare occasions when the country was ruled by dual leaders, these arrangements were always shaky.

Finally, Medvedev's current high popularity may prove too much of a good thing. It could become a potential source of conflict with Putin when he will want the presidential chair back in 2012.

But the one problem that stands above all others is that nobody -- perhaps including Putin himself -- knows Medvedev's political agenda. And this could come back to haunt Putin because, in this swamp of ambiguity, Medvedev as president will have an opportunity to develop a new political strategy that could catch Putin completely off guard.

Translation: Hunter on the right (Communist leader and presidential contender Gennady Zhyuganov, with the pitchfork): "Medvedev [his name means "bear" in Russian], come out and have an honest debate!" Hunter on the left (with the gun): "He's hiding. That can only mean one thing!"

One commenter said: "He's so cute! Don't take him out and debate him, put him in the zoo!" Another commented: "Being in charge of National Projects, he's probably not sleeping well."

Source: Ellustrator.

(1) Re-learning Russian "History" with Dave Essel

(2) Another Original LR Translation: Neo-Soviet "History" Texts

(3) Ukraine Kicks a Little Rooski Ass

(4) Medvedev Shows Yellow (no big surprise)


NOTE: Kim Zigfeld's latest installment on Pajamas Media details the latest outrage by the neo-Soviet Kremlin, shutting all the opposition candidates out of the presidential race, finishing with Putin's own former prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov. Check it out, and feel free to leave your comments as to how the West should best respond to this blatant provocation, the final assault on the citadel of democracy in Russia.

NOTE: One of the neatest, nicest, bestest features of having a powerful blog like this one is that we can ask questions and get answers from people in the know. In a recent post about Russian Oscar nominees we asked if anyone knew about a Russian animated film, and lo and behold Russian art expert Matthew Bown does. He's posted about it on his blog (with a link to a source where Russian readers can find out still more). Check it out. Sounds like a good expression of the best Russians can be, impressively mixing art with technology and a deserving candidate for an award. Pity it isn't getting more attention in the West; will of course, if it wins. If only Russians could do more like this, and less like Putin. In fact, if they could do more like this attacking Putin, and calling for Russia to rise from the mire of totalitarian despair, there's no telling what Russians might accomplish.

Recent Russian History 1945-2006

A.N. Filippov

Prosveshchenie Publishers, 2007

Review by Dave Essell

I was asked by LR if maybe I would select and translate some choicely odious pieces from A.N.Filippov’s Recent Russian History 1945-2006, the recently published and already notorious book of guidance for Soviet – oops!, I mean Russian neonazi – teachers. It turns out I was little overenthusiastic in agreeing to this due to a selection problem: the whole book is choicely odious. Open it at random anywhere (I’ve tried this with friends) and you will on any page find something or other to make you fulminate: tortuous logic and false comparisons in support of a lie, the usual whining attitudes, vile pseudo-intellectual phrasing, cheap tricks such as the insertion as fact of a dubious, to say the least, statement in a list of other wise normal things in the hope that it will pass unnoticed and be accepted, pages of pointless platitudes to deaden the reader’s mind – in short the usual panoply of Lenino-Goebbelsian tricks. The book is in fact a paradigm of Russia today. And Russia today is a combination of Soviet norms in a mixed state-capitalist/free-market environment – Nazi Germany mutatis mutandis…

The tone of the book is striking in its return to Soviet ways of expressing things: don’t read the text, read between the lines… There was always something strange and special about the way that Soviet journalists wrote. This was the result, I think, of that fact that all humans know what is a lie and what isn’t, what’s fair and what isn’t, and we can’t help showing it. Thus it was that when Soviet journalists wrote their crap, there was always an awkward undertone, a sort of complicitous subtext of “you know that this is bollocks, I know it too, and we both know that I’m intellectual quisling and lickspittle which is why I’m not even bothering to try to write well.”

Another extraordinary thing about this mockery of a history book is that, unlike most Soviet history books where the tradition is to have attributory footnotes on every page as way of having them but hindering the research process, it actually has an organised list of sources at the back of the book. However, it is the very first history book I have ever seen in my life that has NO foreign sources whatsoever! All the books in the list are Soviet and Russian. This obviously ensures that a proper balance is found and maintained.

This balance is further assisted by the frequent inclusion of opinion poll data at the end of chapters. The author seems to prefer a polling organisation called FOM (Public Opinion Fund) reminiscent of GnomePolls, the fictitious polling organisation favoured by Lord Gnome, himself the fictitious proprietor and editor-in-chief of the UK’s satirical magazine Private Eye, which operated under the slogan “You tell us the answers and we’ll find the questions!”

Question #1: Many in the West consider Mikhail Gorbachev one of the most outstanding politicians of the 20th century. Do you personally agree or disagree with this view?

The reply categories are (from top to bottom): Agree - Disagree - Don’t know, with three different time periods for each, 1995, 2001 and 2004 (again from top to bottom).

Question #2: In your view, did Mikhail Gorbachev on the whole bring our people more good or harm?

The reply categories are (from top to bottom): More Good - Good and Harm Equally - More Harm - Don’t Know. Two time periods are given for each 2001 and 2004.

Question #3: Generally speaking, in your view would you say Josef Stalin played a positive or negative role in the history of Russia?

The reply categories clockwise from top left are: Negative (29%) - Don’t Know (24%) - Positive (47%).

So how about some examples? (This book could be fisked from page 1 to the end but this would be a teensy-weensy bit tiring on fisker and reader alike). In my translations, I will deliberately resist the temptation of making sense out of nonsense and also retain the verbosity that is essential for authors such as these in preventing the reader’s brain from getting into gear.

• Tortuous logic and ridiculously false comparisons, here about pre-WWII Stalin: “Politico-historical research shows that in similar situations where a serious threat exists even ‘soft’ and ‘pliable’ political systems as rule evolve in favour of a rapprochement with harsh forms of political organisation, in particular in the direction of limiting personal rights in favour of the state, as happened, for example, in the USA after the events of 11 September 2001.” – from Chapter 4: National Policies. The Situation in the USSR in the Later Years of Stalin’s Life (which due to the author’s butterfly-brain manner of exposition also takes some leaps back in time).

This is great. As usual the author takes no responsibility for what is stated (that undercurrent of shamefulness I mentioned?): what you are reading is the result of politico-historical research not by the author and thus absolute truth. Of course, no citations are given as a Russian who has got his mind right knows that politico-historical research just HAS to be right! Finally, it takes some chutzpah to reach for a parallel between the Soviet Union of 1937 and the relatively harmless (but very wrong nonetheless) inanities of US Homeland Security post 9/11.

• A few paragraphs below this, I found the following gem: “Of course, the Soviet period was given particular drama and tension by the character traits of Stalin. Contemporary witnesses and later research by political psychologists show that the determining factor of Stalin’s personality was a sort of black&white perception of reality (accompanied by a categorisation of the people around him into ‘friend’/’foe’), a feeling that his milieu was hostile, cruelty and a need to dominate. However, the influence of the psychological peculiarities of his character was probably secondary compared to the role of objective circumstances.”

Political psychologists, indeed! I suppose such people must be graduates of the Serbsky Institute’s renowned Department of Political Psychology. And in the midst of all this bollocks, note the number of disclaimers: ‘sort of’, ‘probably’, and those wonderful ‘objective circumstances’ that need no further description. I will charitably assume that the syntactical errors are the result of the extreme difficulty in writing many words while ideally conveying no information.

• Do we fancy a Goebbelsian lie, and not even about something very important? How about: “In a very short timescale, the Volga Automobile Factory (VAZ) mastered the production of its Model VAZ-2101, the famous ‘kopeika’, a Soviet analogue of the Fiat 124.” (TN: kopeika = 1 kopeck = model number 1. This is the first Lada).

In fact, the Lada factory and technology was licensed lock, stock and barrel from Fiat. ‘Mastering the production’ in Russia does not mean R&D then planning and building a factory, merely ensuring that Fiat fulfils its contract and then keeping workers sober long enough to get some vehicles off the far end of the production line. (As a personal note, my very first car was a red VAZ-2101, export model obtained in the 70’s from the Beryozka dollar shop in Moscow and highly prized since the export models were actually fitted with Weber carburetors since the Toliatti plant after a decade of operation was still in the process of ‘mastering’ the manufacture of decent carburetors). Of Ladas, Wikipedia says that they have “the distinction of being one of the most produced car models in automotive history […] known for its outdated technology, poor fuel economy and tank-like roadholding”.

• Sneak in some, to put it mildly, dubious, facts (these from Chapter 1: Choosing a Course): “It was no coincidence that the case of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (JAC) was revived in 1948. Having been set up during the war, the JAC became an important social centre for Jews living in the USSR. Its popularity inside the Soviet Union, its fame abroad, and the fact that it had a certain autonomy from state organs gave rise to dubious feelings in Stalin. In the conditions of the Cold War, the JAC’s links with international Jewish organisations appeared suspicious and dangerous. The proposal by the JAC’s leadership that a Jewish autonomous region be established in the Crimea and the JAC’s role in the USSR’s support for Israel, which was later recognised to be an error, completed the case. In January 1948, agents of the MGB killed People’s Artist of the USSR S.M. Mikhoels in a faked car accident.”

What a wonderful use of the passive when affirming something that must surely at least be open to discussion. It’s worth comparing this wriggly, worm-ridden paragraph with Wikipedia’s short but fact-filled entry on the JAC:

The Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (JAC, Russian language: Еврейский антифашистский комитет, ЕАК) was formed in Kuibyshev in April 1942 with the official support of the Soviet authorities. It was designed to influence international public opinion and organize political and material support for the Soviet fight against Nazi Germany, particularly from the West. […] The JAC broadcast pro-Soviet propaganda to foreign audiences, assuring them of the absence of anti-Semitism in the USSR. In 1943, Mikhoels and Itzik Feffer, the first official representatives of the Soviet Jewry allowed to visit the West, embarked on a seven-month tour to the USA, Mexico, Canada and Britain to drum up their support. In the US, they were welcomed by a National Reception Committee chaired by Albert Einstein and by B.Z. Goldberg, Sholom Aleichem's son-in-law, and American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee. The largest pro-Soviet rally ever in the United States was held on July 8 at the Polo Grounds, where 50,000 people listened to Mikhoels, Fefer, Fiorello LaGuardia, Sholem Asch, and Chairman of World Jewish Congress Rabbi Stephen Wise. Among others, they met Chaim Weizmann, Charlie Chaplin, Marc Chagall, Paul Robeson and Lion Feuchtwanger.

In addition to the funds for the Russian war effort — 16 million dollars raised in the US, 15 million in England, ? in Canada, 1 million in Mexico, 750 thousand in the British Mandate of Palestine — other help was also contributed: machinery, medical equipment, medicine, ambulances, clothes. On July 16, 1943, Pravda reported: "Mikhoels and Feffer received a message from Chicago that a special conference of the Joint initiated a campaign to finance a thousand ambulances for the needs of the Red Army." The visit also evoked the American public to the necessity of entering the European war. […] Towards the end and immediately after the war, the JAC became involved in documenting the Holocaust. This ran contrary to the official Soviet policy to present it as atrocities against all Soviet citizens, not acknowledging the specific genocide of the Jews.

Some of the committee members were vocal supporters of the State of Israel, established in 1948, something that Stalin supported very briefly. Their international contacts especially to the USA at the outset of the Cold War would eventually make them vulnerable to charges that they had become politically incorrect.

The contacts with American Jewish organizations resulted in the plan to publish the Black Book simultaneously in the US and the Soviet Union, documenting the Holocaust and participation of Jews in the resistance movement. The Black Book was indeed published in New York in 1946, but no Russian edition appeared. The typeface galleys were broken up in 1948, when the political situation of Soviet Jewry deteriorated. In January 1948, Mikhoels was killed in a suspicious car accident in Minsk.

Filippov’s nasty little paragraph about the JAC is a good example of the need to read between the lines. What it really – but unintentionally – tells the discriminating Soviet reader is that there is more to the JAC than is being said here but you’ll have to go elsewhere to find it (else why mention the organisation for so little information of note?).

• Whining attitudes and filching in unproven assumptions (a fine example from Chapter 1 again): “The internal contradictions of the Soviet Union did not prevent its people uniting during the war years. A decisive role in the victory was played by the Soviet people unity of morale, reinforced by the whole economic and political might of the vast centralised state. The USSR, which sacrificed the most on the altar of the anti-Hitlerite coalition’s joint Victory, which made such a significant and dearly-paid contribution to the Victory, had reason to count on aid from the Western allies to restore its collapsed economy.”

Pseudo-intellectual claptrap in purple prose (from the Introduction): “For some time now our schoolchildren have been being presented with various points of view, different variants of answers to the questions: what is the world, humanity, the Universe? By what laws do they develop? What is the place of people in this world? How do human societies develop? […] The book you have now in your hands covers the history of Russia from the end of the Great Patriotic War to the present day, from the magnificent and historic triumph of the Soviet Union to its tragic collapse. […] The variety of answers to what are key questions for young people who are just beginning to independently comprehend the world about them is indubitably an indicator of the achievement of the modern Russian school. The variety of points of view, openness to new interpretations of what previously were considered long-known truths, discussivity as the basis of the didactic process – all these are becoming the main methodology in the teaching of humanitarian disciplines.

Hypocrisy was a defining characteristic of the Soviet Union with its ‘most democratic constitution in the world’, its ‘work correction camps’, and so on and to say that this book is a demonstration of “openness to new interpretations” is another prime example of the same. This book lays down the new party line and is a closed to reason and reasonableness as the Soviet Union ever was.

[NOTE: Following this post is a direct translation from the text itself, also by Dave Essel -- or click here to view the page if came direct to this one from the Internet]

[TN: Above I reviewed in LR A.N. Filippov’s most distasteful book Recent Russian History 1945-2006, Prosveshchenie Publishers, 2007. For a fuller flavour and so that LR readers can get their minds right, I thought it would be useful to have the full explanation of the oligarch situation in English as we have clearly been labouring under major misapprehensions until now, possibly due to a culture clash.]

The Clash with the Oligarchs

Vladimir Putin’s first actions in the post of Prime Minister and later acting President aroused the discontent of a number of the oligarchs. On 28 February 2000, at a meeting with representatives of great capital, Putin explained that he would not tolerate business interfering in government decisions and furthermore would not tolerate attempts by big business to privatise government authority. The principle that business should be properly distanced from power applied to all and the President’s actions proved that this was not empty rhetoric but a thought-through policy.

A major section of the oligarchs resigned themselves to this situation. However, two representatives of that community – the media magnates V. Gusinsky and B. Berezovsky – were not ready to acquiesce in the loss of their leverage on the government. The years 2000-2001 were marked by conflicts with these two oligarchs. For the government, it was a question of breaking up the system whereby the oligarchs controlled the mass media. The destruction of oligarchic control of the mass media was a necessary condition of the return to the state of its rightful control and authority, all the more so since the oligarchs controlled was not held on a lawful basis.

In modern mass society, control of the mass media is one of the key elements for influencing policies because policies depend on public opinion and that, in its turn, is to a considerable extent formed by the mass media. Control by the oligarchs of the electronic and printed mass media was one of the prime elements of oligarchic leverage on government policy in the second half of the 1990s.

When Gusinsky failed to repay on time credits granted by Gazprom and Sberbank, bankruptcy proceedings were started against the NTV television channel to return it to state ownership. In the end, ownership of NTV was transferred to Gazprom-Media-Holding and Gusinsky received $300M for his shares in the company, after which he emigrated from Russia. Government control was later reestablished over the ORT television channel. Legally, the channel had always belonged to the state, which owned 51% of its shares. A stop was put to B.A. Berezovsky’s usurpation of the owner’s rights by a simple change of management.

In this way all attempts to blackmail the state via control of media resources were cut short. Gusinsky and Berezovsky continue to remain in exile abroad. The former has abandoned public politics while Berezovsky continues regularly to publicise in the Russian and foreign media his criticisms of the actions of the Russian authorities and in 2006 openly declared that his activities are directed at the violent seizure of power in Russia.

The next clash between the government and the oligarchs took place in 2003. On 25 October, M. Khodorkovsky, the owner of Russia’s largest oil company – Yukos, was arrested in Novosibirsk airport, charged along with his closest associates with tax evasion and fraud. Khodorkovsky’s defenders assert that he is being persecuted for political reasons – because he was financing opposition parties. It is true that prior to the State Duma elections the owners of Yukos tried to ensure a majority for themselves in the future parliament by financing several political parties at the same time in exchange for having their people included in the lists. Fairness requires one to admit that M. Khodorkovsky was financing not only opposition parties but pro-government ones as well. This was not so much opposition but rather an attempt by the oligarchs to get their own back by corrupting parliament and the whole party system irrespective of the parties’ political platforms and allegiances.

In addition to this, the state had just made a declaration on the need to protect strategic energy resources as a component of the state’s security. The point of the “Yukos affair” was that the state, as its gathered strength, was sending a clear message to big business: obey the law, pay your taxes, and don’t try to put yourself above the state. That message was heard loud and clear. In 2004, following the “Yukos affair”, federal tax receipts collected fro the major tax payers rose by 133.8% against 2003 receipts. In addition, the trend in the oil companies’ corporation taxes in 2002-2003 had been downward and then in 2004 rose immediately by 225.3%. Some companies, seeing how the “Yukos affair” had gone, voluntarily offered to pay back taxes. The “Yukos affair” finally buried the oligarchs’ hopes of preserving their control over the Russian state.

Point of View

[TN: these are frequently interjected in Filippov’s book, supposedly to vividly illuminate the previous section]

The case of the Yukos oil company is a many similar to that of the America’s Standard Oil which, at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, had monopolised the oil transportation market in the USA and was aggressively swallowing its competitors and demonstrating a great capacity for lobbying. By the early 1900s, the monopolies’ strength in the USA was undermining the power of the federal government. Big businessmen were putting the interests of their corporations before national interests and frequently getting the interests of their enterprises placed before national ones. Public discontent at the activities of the monopolies ensued because the interests of the majority of citizens were being ignored in a chase after profits that threatened the proper functioning of the state. American citizens did not believe the state capable of ensuring ‘fair play’. The federal powers began a campaign against the monopolies. The main target was Standard Oil, head by John Rockefeller. US President T. Roosevelt supported the General Prosecutor’s investigation of the activities of the big corporations. A case against Standard Oil was started in 1906 and in 1907 sever writs against the company were issued. Rockefeller himself might have been taken to court; however, he agreed to cooperate with the prosecution. The trial found that the company and its management were guilty of breaking anti-trust law. Standard Oil was broken up into 38 different companies. This was a clear signal to big business that they needed to conduct their affairs in a way that took account of the interest of the state and society.

[TN: …and the similarities continue, dear Filippov. According to Wikipedia on May 15, 1911, the US Supreme Court upheld the lower court judgment and declared the Standard Oil group to be an "unreasonable" monopoly under the Sherman Antitrust Act. It ordered Standard to break up into 34 independent companies with different boards of directors. Standard's president, John Rockefeller, had long since retired from any management role. But, as he owned a quarter of the shares of the resultant companies, and those share values mostly doubled, he emerged from the dissolution as the richest man in the world” while Khodorkovsky was packed off to a concentration camp.]

The Moscow Times reports on the breathtaking early triumphs of the Timoshenko government:

February is shaping up to be a big month for Ukraine, and President Viktor Yushchenko -- backed by a group of heavyweight allies in Davos -- said his country should emerge with flying colors.

On Feb. 5, the World Trade Organization's General Council will vote on Ukraine's long-awaited entry into the World Trade Organization -- a decision that could give Kiev an upper hand over Moscow as well as any European capital tempted to resort to protectionism to ward off global economic turmoil. Then Yushchenko will fly to Moscow on Feb. 12 for his first visit with President Vladimir Putin since Yulia Tymoshenko replaced the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych as prime minister.

Yushchenko, speaking Friday at a lunch on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum, gave few details about what he expected from the Moscow visit but indicated that he hoped for some resolution to issues that have strained relations, including gas transit fees and the price that Ukraine pays for Russian gas. "We would like to see new prospects for settling problems with Russia," Yushchenko told a restaurant overflowing with guests. Organizers had to turn away 250 people. But first is the Feb. 5 vote that Yushchenko will attend in Geneva. The WTO confirmed Ukraine's accession at a meeting Friday, clearing the way for the largely formal vote by the 151-member General Council. Ukraine will then have six months to pass the legislation that it agreed to as part of its entry. The country will become a member 30 days after that. "I have no doubt that Feb. 5 will be a great day for Ukraine and Ukraine's business partners," said Yushchenko, who has made WTO membership a priority since becoming president three years ago.

Speaker after speaker took to the lectern after Yushchenko to praise his initiatives and Ukraine's course. The loud praise was in stark contrast to last year's Ukrainian lunch at Davos, where Yanukovych was the guest of honor and faced a barrage of criticism from then-Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga and other guests over his more Russian-focused vision for Ukraine.

Former World Bank president James Wolfensohn applauded Yushchenko's efforts to bring Ukraine into the WTO as well as NATO and the European Union. "I think the steps you are taking would give encouragement to everyone," he said. Turning to Yushchenko's upcoming talks with Putin, Wolfensohn said, "We look forward to the Feb. 12 visit as another clarification in the role of your country." Tymoshenko is expected to visit Moscow in a few days to lay the foundation for Yushchenko's trip.

Yushchenko sharply defended Ukraine's desire to join NATO, a move strongly opposed by Russia. "We do not need anybody's authorization, agreement or their 'yes' or 'no,'" he said. "This is not against any country. It is a reflection of our national interests."

The president touted Ukraine's plans to privatize Ukrtelecom and stakes in around a dozen other enterprises this year, and he called on banks and consulting firms to bring their expertise to the table to ensure the sales' success. "We need partners," he said. He also said Ukraine would like to float 10 companies on the New York Stock Exchange this year.

Yushchenko won a ringing endorsement from Jean Lemierre, president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. "Ukraine has a sound economy from a business viewpoint," he said, identifying the key benefits of doing business there as cheap energy and cheap labor. He cautioned that the benefits would not last forever and said the main bottleneck to economic growth remained a lack of infrastructure. Still, Lemierre praised the latest privatization plans and said foreign investors had "a huge appetite" for Ukrainian assets.

Among the hungry investors is Michael White, head of PepsiCo International, who first visited Ukraine as a college student in the 1970s. White said he was impressed with how much the country has changed and said Pepsi was putting its money where its mouth was, purchasing a local juice company, Sandora, for $542 million last year and switching from Malaysian palm oil to local sunflower oil at its regional potato-chip plant.

Fred Bergsten, a U.S. economist and co-founder of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, also gave Ukraine's economy high marks, saying robust emerging markets like Ukraine provided guarantees that the U.S. financial crisis would not spread across the entire world. "There will not be -- I repeat -- there will not be a world recession," he said.

Bergsten applauded Ukraine's march toward the WTO and said its accession would place it in a better position to defend its trade interests -- particularly against a growing threat of trade protectionism as EU countries consider ways to avoid economic fallout from the United States. The EU is Ukraine's biggest trade partner. "It is important ... that Ukraine is about to join the WTO," Bergsten said. Ukraine, Russia and Iran are the biggest countries outside the WTO. Russia has been trying to join for more than a decade, and European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said in Geneva on Friday that he hoped Russia would enter the trade body this year, Reuters reported.

At the lunch, Yushchenko conceded that he had a way to go to reach his goal of "bringing Ukraine back to Europe." But he said his government was taking the right steps by, among other things, creating a new state agency to fight corruption among civil servants and ensure fair parliamentary elections. He noted that the vote last fall was the first in Ukraine's history to be declared democratic by international observers. "Ukraine is a young democracy, and one has to go to the first grade, then to the fifth grade, and then to graduate," Yushchenko said.

LR: Note how this man can freely admit that Ukraine still has work to do on democracy, without being ashamed or worried about foreign scorn. He's confident, because he's legitimate. Can we say the same about Vladimir Putin? Is he man enough to make a statement like this? Of course not.

The Ukrainian lunch at Davos, now in its fourth year, was hosted by Viktor Pinchuk, the billionaire son-in-law of former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma. The Ukrainian-themed menu included hors d'oeuvres made with slabs of salo, followed by bowls of dark-red borshch smothered in sour cream, honey-marinated beef stuffed with prunes and apples, and cherry vareniki for dessert.

There's more. The EU is on board!

The European Union supports Ukraine's attempt to revise its natural gas agreement with Russia, which would allow the country to sign a long-term accord, Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko said Tuesday. Tymoshenko, who took office Dec. 18, wants to scrap the country's natural gas accord with Russia, raise transit fees for Russian fuel exports to Europe and fees for Ukraine's gas storage and drop gas-trader RosUkrEnergo. She will visit Moscow Feb. 21 to revise the agreement. "We propose building a formula approach" to determine the gas price, Tymoshenko told a group of journalists in Brussels on Monday. "I have heard the support for this kind of negotiation here today. The EU is interested in forming a long-term pricing policy."

Tymoshenko also used the visit to stress the need for an alternative to the Nabucco project to deliver Central Asian gas to Europe and an EU donor group to help fund the modernization of Ukraine's pipelines, Interfax reported. Tymoshenko also said she wanted to diversify energy supplies to Ukraine. "For 17 years we have not built any diversified projects,'' Tymoshenko said. "We would like to have new transit Caspian-Black Sea corridor together with investors.'' She requested that the EU consider participation in the so-called White Stream gas project, which would pass the Caspian and Black seas through Ukraine to Europe, Interfax reported. "This project could be considerably cheaper and more effective, and we want Ukraine and the European Union to be partners in this project," Tymoshenko said, Interfax reported.

Russia supplies one-quarter of Europe's gas, of which about four-fifths travels through Ukrainian pipelines. In 2006, Russia sought to quadruple Ukraine's gas price, and Gazprom cut supplies in the first days of January 2006 after Ukraine rejected the demand. This resulted in shortages in countries including Hungary, Italy and Germany. "The market has to regulate everything," Tymoshenko said. "It has to be the market, not a political discussion." Russia doubled the gas price for Ukraine in 2006 and raised it by 37 percent last year and 38 percent this year. Ukraine increased the transit fee for Russia to $1.70 per 1,000 cubic meters of gas per 100 kilometers this year, compared with $1.60 in 2007 and 2006. "Starting in 2006, Russia has been raising prices of natural gas," Tymoshenko said. "On the other hand, the cost of transit remained almost unchanged."

At a news conference Tuesday in Brussels, EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said the bloc was planning to negotiate a free trade agreement with Ukraine, calling the accord a high priority. Mandelson said talks would start in the weeks after Ukraine joins the World Trade Organization. Ukraine on Jan. 25 received approval to become the WTO's 153rd member. Appearing at the same news conference, Tymoshenko asked EU officials to start work on allowing Ukraine to join the EU's electronic customs declarations in the fight against smuggling. Ukraine borders EU members Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania. "I say 'yes' ... to the question of whether Ukraine is capable of forming solid, long-term and reliable stability," Tymoshenko told reporters after talks with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana. "'Yes' to harmonious relations between the president, parliament and government and 'yes' to stability."

Anders Alsund jumps on the bandwagon:

After Ukraine's extraordinary parliamentary elections on Sept. 30, it took no less than 2 1/2 months to form a government, and it was confirmed by the slightest of parliamentary margins. The new coalition government headed by Yulia Tymoshenko, however, has started ambitiously and auspiciously.

The Ukrainian economy is in good shape with a growth rate of 7.3 percent last year. The stock market surged by no less than 120 percent last year, and it has barely fallen during the January turmoil. The new government's biggest achievement is to make Ukraine ready to join the World Trade Organization at a February 5 meeting of the WTO General Council. One month after the parliament ratifies the accession, Ukraine will become a full-fledged member of the WTO. This could boost the country's growth by one percentage point a year.

Ukraine's WTO accession is a joint accomplishment of the four last governments. The very last obstacle was a European Union complaint about the country's export tariffs, primarily on steel scrap. It has been relegated to the negotiations about a free-trade agreement with the EU, which are likely to be concluded before the end of 2008. As elsewhere in the region, the greatest economic concern is the high and rising inflation, as consumer prices rose by 16.6 percent last year. As a consequence, experienced Finance Minister Viktor Pynzenyk immediately tightened the budget by balancing it. Fortunately, no price controls or export controls are being discussed. Tymoshenko says that she has learned not to do so from her tenure in 2005. Tymoshenko's most worrisome campaign promise was to compensate Ukrainians who lost their bank savings in the early 1990s because of hyperinflation and to do so in the course of two years. Fortunately, the government has capped this compensation program at $1.2 billion, which is less than one percent of gross domestic product, and it has distributed the money swiftly and equally.

As in all democratic post-communist countries, corruption was the biggest concern during the election campaign. Wisely, Tymoshenko made it her key theme. In order to substantiate her promises to combat corruption, she has moved quickly on three fronts. The most obnoxious and conspicuous corruption was the previous government's practice of selling value-added tax refunds for exporters at a "commission" of 20 percent to 30 percent. Tymoshenko has appointed a competent former economy minister, Valery Khoroshkovsky, to head the tax administration and to sort that problem out. The customs problem, which Tymoshenko cleaned up in 2005, has again become one of her focal points of corruption, and she is set to repeat her prior success. The most intricate corruption is persistently in gas trade, which Tymoshenko is very knowledgeable about from her old business. The intermediary RosUkrEnergo does not appear to have any reason to exist. Nor does its half-owned Ukrainian subsidiary, UkrGazEnergo. The apparent purpose of these two nontransparent joint ventures is to siphon off money to a number of prominent Russians and Ukrainians. The costs of this boondoggle are so large that the Ukrainian state oil and gas corporation, Naftogaz Ukrainy, is on the verge of bankruptcy. We do not need to know the details to understand that something has to be done. Tymoshenko has moved to exclude these dysfunctional structures from Ukraine's gas trade. Fortunately, Gazprom chairman and Russia's president-in-waiting Dmitry Medvedev expresses the same view.

In the last two years, Ukraine has carried out minimal privatization. On Jan. 18, the new Ukrainian government published a list of 19 state-owned companies slated for privatization this year. The total value of the stakes to be sold is assessed at some $5 billion. Sensibly, the new government has abandoned its predecessor's tactic of selling very small posts, instead offering large majority posts in three major companies, including Ukrtelecom, Ukraine's old fixed-line monopoly. Year after year, Ukraine has prolonged a moratorium on the sale of private agricultural land, benefiting only large businessmen who have bought up tens of thousands of hectares. The new government has let this moratorium lapse, and it is intent on swiftly adopting the necessary legislation to facilitate land trade.

President Viktor Yushchenko, Tymoshenko and parliamentary Speaker Arseniy Yatseniuk have signed an application for a Membership Action Plan to NATO in advance of the alliance's summit in Bucharest in April. This was somewhat surprising because Tymoshenko has avoided the topic. Together with WTO membership and a free trade agreement with the EU, the MAP, which may or may not lead to NATO membership, defines Ukraine's firm Western-oriented foreign policy.

The worst policy that Tymoshenko pursued in 2005 was reprivatization, but she seems to have learned that lesson as well, so far staying away from such a destabilizing policy. The new Ukrainian government has delivered a very impressive start, and there is strong hope that much more is to come. One outcome of the last parliamentary elections was that the three dominant parties share a broad market economic consensus. All three are democratic, center-right parties that are financed by big businessmen, most of whom are quickly gentrifying because the market values of their corporations surge with transparency and orderliness.

Several of the biggest Ukrainian businessmen have voluntarily abandoned transfer pricing and started paying taxes in full. They are also devoting large resources to charitable donations, mainly in education and health. Yet, as a consequence of scandals with big businessmen-cum-ministers, they are almost absent from the new Cabinet.

Ukraine has all along suffered from constitutional disorder. Although the constitution has not changed, improved practices are apparent. The dominant opposition party, the Party of the Regions, has set up a shadow government. The two coalition partners, the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc and Yushchenko's Our Ukraine, have divided the Cabinet posts so that Tymoshenko controls all economic appointments while Our Ukraine controls foreign policy, security and culture. An orderly balance of power between the president and the prime minister seems to be emerging out of their persistent power struggle.

Obviously, one month is far too early to pass any judgment on a government, but its start has been truly impressive. Ukraine sets an illustrative example for how Russia could have evolved if it had developed its democracy and market economy through competition among the oligarchs instead of abandoning democracy. Because of its more radical, market-based economic reforms in the 1990s, Russia still benefits from better legislation. Even so, property rights appear more secure in Ukraine now because of democracy's greater transparency and checks and balances.

The Moscow Times reports:

The Central Elections Commission on Tuesday finalized the schedule for televised debates between candidates in the March 2 presidential election. But viewers won't be seeing front-runner Dmitry Medvedev squaring off against his three opponents.

Medvedev, the first deputy prime minister and President Vladimir Putin's preferred successor, has opted to take Putin's tack and forego the debates, which will be shown on Channel One, Rossia television and TV Center beginning next week. Medvedev is "choosing to work" instead of participating in the debates, which would use up his time "at the expense of the voters," Vyacheslav Volodin, a senior official with United Russia -- which nominated Medvedev -- said at the commission's headquarters Tuesday. "We can't allow this to happen," Volodin said.

Medvedev's poll numbers and the history of Russian elections seem to offer little motivation for him to debate policy with other candidates. Medvedev had the backing of 82 percent of the 1,600 decided voters polled by the Levada Center in 46 regions from Jan. 18 to 21, and neither Putin nor former President Boris Yeltsin ever participated in a televised debate ahead of elections. Furthermore, Medvedev has enjoyed a huge advantage in television coverage in recent weeks over the other candidates -- Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov, Liberal Democratic Party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky and Democratic Party of Russia leader Andrei Bogdanov.

Zyuganov's campaign chief, Ivan Melnikov, accused Medvedev on Tuesday of undermining the election with his refusal to debate and threatened that Zyuganov could follow suit. "In a democratic state, a candidate's withdrawal from debates would have meant his withdrawal from the race," he said. The final decision on Zyuganov's participation was to be made Thursday.

Zhirinovsky and Bogdanov, whose tiny party is widely considered a Kremlin project aimed at splitting off votes from democratic opposition parties, were more upbeat about Medvedev's decision. "We will get the chance to criticize them all," Zhirinovsky said, Interfax reported. Bogdanov, who told reporters Tuesday that he proudly heads up the country's largest Masonic Lodge, said he would like to ask Medvedev if he knows what life is like "on the other side of the tracks."

"I bet he doesn't," Bogdanov said.

Candidates were allocated 42 hours of free airtime, including debates and campaign ads on radio and television. Asked what Medvedev's campaign spots would look like, Volodin said, "You'll know them when you see them."

TV Center will air 10 debates at 5:50 p.m. over the next month beginning Monday. Channel One will air debates Tuesdays from 7:05 a.m. to 8 a.m. beginning next week. Rossia television will broadcast debates Thursdays at 10:55 p.m. Central Elections Commission member Maya Grishina said the debates would be canceled if every candidate refused to participate. Should only one candidate agree to debate, he would have the entire time to himself.