Letter From the UK (About Russia as Rogue-State)

Russia must choose between respecting the law of nations and becoming a rogue state

By  
Last updated: July 19th, 2014
The Telegraph

Lord Palmerston was our last Whig prime minister, and probably the most ebullient patriot ever to occupy 10 Downing Street. When a French Ambassador politely told him, “If I had not been born French, I should wish to have been born British,” Palmerston replied, “If I had not been born British, I should wish to have been born British”. On another occasion, informed by his French counterpart that the English had no word equivalent to the French word sensibilité, he snapped back: “Yes we have – humbug!”

So when, in 1858, the French government demanded restitution from Britain over a failed attempt on the life of Napoleon III by an Italian nationalist named Felice Orsini, who was said to have had support from British radicals, many expected a brusque response from the peppery 76-year-old PM: perhaps the despatch of a gunboat to the Seine to teach Frenchie better manners.

Instead, Palmerston reacted with horror to what had happened. He ordered prosecutions against the British radicals accused of having abetted Orsini, and introduced a Conspiracy to Murder Bill into Parliament. He did these things at a time when the United Kingdom was without question the world’s leading power, able to enforce her will on every continent and archipelago.

Note that no one was accusing the British state, either directly or indirectly, of having been implicated in the assassination attempt. The complaint, rather, was that the authorities had not kept a proper eye on potential terrorists living under British jurisdiction. Orsini had learned how to make his bombs, and seemed to have acquired his materials, while exiled in London. The modern equivalent might be – to pluck an example from the air – turning a blind eye to the acquisition of a surface-to-air missile launcher by a paramilitary group supported by your own armed forces.

Palmerston didn’t have to worry about foreign pressure: Britain in 1858 was immensely more feared and respected than Russia in 2014. But the old man understood that the United Kingdom, of all nations, must respect the rules. The politician who, eight years earlier, had ordered the blockade of Piraeus and the seizure of Greek shipping in pursuit of compensation for Don Pacifico, a Portuguese Jew who, by virtue of having been born in Gibraltar, had a claim on British protection, now applied the law as sternly to his own country. Pam knew that law is what lifts men from savagery. When a small nation turns rogue, it’s an inconvenience; when a great power does so, it’s a calamity.

Over to you, President Putin.

Hades, Fury, and Bullies

Manhood Problem

New York Times columnist David Brooks said Sunday that President Barack Obama has a “manhood problem” in the Middle East.  “[L]et’s face it,” he said. “Obama, whether deservedly or not, does have a — I’ll say it crudely, but a manhood problem in the Middle East. Is he tough enough to stand up to somebody like Assad, somebody like Putin?”

“I think a lot of the rap is unfair, but certainly in the Middle East, there’s an assumption that he’s not tough,” Brooks added during a roundtable discussion on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”  Chuck Todd, NBC’s chief White House correspondent, added that “internally they (the Obama Admin.) fear this.”

(H/T: TheBlazeMediaite)

Look, dealing with this is literally easier said than done.  Just get the President to mount the podium once again, adopt that haughty proud look, waggle his finger in that professorial hectoring mien, and speechify.  Carpet bomb the Middle East and Russia with lofty language, soaring rhetoric, and finger wagging threats.  Internally, the Russians fear this.  Its dread keeps them awake over in the Kremlin into the wee small hours–until Comrade Vodka takes over the watch. 

But, on a sober note, it is disconcerting.  It is precisely this kind of situation which, when combined with this make of man, will produce a “display” to prove a point.  Some theatrical move on Obama’s part to demonstrate just how much of a man he really is.  Hades hath no fury like a venal politician scorned.  The bluster of bullies sounds the loudest.  Wars have begun this way. 

The Lusts of Vlad the Impaler

Good Luck with Finland

It has been reported that Vlad the Impaler has his eyes on restoring Russia’s borders to the 1917 status quo.  In Vlad’s mind, international law and treaties are null and void after that year. This, from the NZ Herald:

After annexing Crimea and with troops massed on the border of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin will not stop trying to expand Russia until he has “conquered” Belarus, the Baltic states and Finland, one of his closest former advisers has said.  According to Andrej Illarionov, the President’s chief economic adviser from 2000 to 2005, Mr Putin seeks to create “historical justice” with a return to the days of the last Tsar, Nicholas II, and the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Speaking to the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, Mr Illarionov warned that Russia will argue that the granting of independence to Finland in 1917 was an act of “treason against national interests”.  “Putin’s view is that he protects what belongs to him and his predecessors,” Mr Illarionov said.  “Parts of Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States and Finland are states where Putin claims to have ownership.”

Let’s think about Finland.
  It is a small country when considered from the metric of population, but has a long border with Russia (1300km).  It turns out that the Finns, like the Swiss, take national defence seriously.  According to Wikipedia:

Finland is the only non-NATO EU country bordering Russia. Finland’s official policy states that the 350,000 reservists with mostly ground weaponry are a sufficient deterrent. The army consists of a highly mobile field army backed up by local defence units. The army defends the national territory and its military strategy employs the use of the heavily forested terrain and numerous lakes to wear down an aggressor, instead of attempting to hold the attacking army on the frontier.  Finland’s defence budget equals about 2 billion euro or 1.4-1.6 percent of the GDP. The voluntary overseas service is highly popular and troops serve around the world in UN, NATO and EU missions. Homeland defence willingness stands at around 80%, one of the highest rates in Europe.

If Russia were to invade, it would be like putting a pudgy hand into a wasp’s nest.  Good luck with that.  Full marks to the Finnish people for being prepared to take homeland defence seriously, and being willing to pay the price.  A homeland defence willingness of 80% must be up there with Israel.

We wonder how New Zealand would fare in a survey of “homeland defence willingness”.  Pretty low, we would imagine.

Driven by Vlad’s antediluvian world view, the stupid illegalities of Russia, which rip up treaties and international agreements in a vain attempt to re-create the past, are serious if one happens to be a neighbouring country.  But it serves to underscore the need of all countries to take their own defence seriously.  Those that don’t, live in a dream-world.  Countries unwilling to pay the price of their own defence, risk ending up paying the price of invasion and control by tyrants.  Countries that attempt to slough off their own defence responsibilities–which are the price of independence–to other countries by means of treaties and agreements are already servile in one measure or other.  Good on the Finns for taking the opposite, and correct, view.  Good on them for believing that defence is the responsibility of every grown adult in the country.

Putin’s recklessness is doomed to failure.  The worst case scenario is that the Russian bear extends its paw to swipe through the Baltic states, the Ukraine, and so on, in a vainglorious attempt to restore the borders back to 1917.  Within a generation it will have collapsed in a ruin far worse than communism’s implosion.  What Vlad has not worked out yet is that the best thing for Russia’s long term interests is to be surrounded by free, independent states with whom they can trade on a willing, open and fair basis, without pressure or threat, implied or actual.  Vlad is an anachronism.  He will have deserved the mausoleum of mockery history will bestow upon him. 

The biggest risk is not Vlad, but that the West, in its own manifestation of Putinesque vainglory, will come to believe it needs to interfere militarily.  World wars have begun that way.  

Oh, and in case you had not heard, Vlad recently was interviewed on national TV in the United States.

Letter from the UK (About Vlad the Impaler)

 A Good News Day

In politics and government, the unintended consequences are usually the silent killer.  In this case, however, it appears the unintended consequences of Vlad the Impaler’s lawless soft-war overreach into the Ukraine, with its implicit threats to Europe, is going to prove a great boon to the European Union, whilst ending up a  self-inflicted economic blow to Crazy Ivan.  Vlad will have impaled his own nation’s foot with his short-guy-syndrome, tough-talk sabre-rattling. 

Vlad had calculated that Europe would be suppliant and cowering before the might of the Russian bear, since it depends upon Russia for natural gas. But . . . 
 

Vladimir Putin: Hero of the European Union

14 Mar 2014

Vladimir Putin’s adventurism in the Ukraine has had a strange side effect: it may well have prolonged the life of his chief rival and antagonist – the European Union – by several years. (h/t Benny Peiser – Global Warming Policy Foundation)

Until Russia began rattling its sabre, the EU’s economy was locked in a downward death spiral.
There are lots of reasons for this (excessive regulation; the difficulties of having northern and southern European economies operating at very different speeds; incompetence, waste and an ageing demographic…), but if you had to pick the one factor that was dooming it above all, I’d say it was environmental regulation. Specifically, the EU’s ongoing war on fossil fuels and its championing of expensive, inefficient, “renewable” energy have virtually destroyed the economies of Spain and Portugal, given Denmark the world’s most expensive electricity, and hamstrung even the industrial might of Germany.

But it’s amazing what the threat of war – or, best case scenario, of being held hostage by Russian oil and gas producers – can do to concentrate the mind.

Consider the tough new environmental laws passed by the EU parliament in Strasbourg this week. The significant part is – much to the irritation of the green activists who infest the EU – the new regulations specifically excluded shale gas.  For the EU this will be, if not necessarily a life-saver, at least a pretty significant dose of economic Viagra. We’ve seen, already, how the shale revolution has benefited the US, where the gas price is roughly a third of what it is in Europe. What has been sorely lacking, until now, is the political will within EU’s member states to exploit their shale gas reserves. In France (because it can: it’s got nuclear) fracking is banned, as it is in Bulgaria. And even those countries which are more or less pro shale gas – eg Britain and Poland – have been pitifully slow to get fracking.

But just look at what a difference Putin has made.

On Tuesday, the Polish government announced that its home grown fracking industry would be tax-free through to 2020.

Günther Oettinger, EU energy commissioner, has called for the building of more terminals for liquified natural gas and for EU members to begin drilling for shale gas.

Markus Beyrer, the secretary general of Business Europe, the EU employers’ association, has called on EU leaders to be “less emotional” (i.e. less vulnerable to eco-hysteria) in their approach to fracking.
He said this week:

“We think that we have to balance climate policy, but also cost competitiveness and security of supply. And of course, recently, the issue of security of supply has been added an extra element of external dependence.”

Gordon Moffat, director general of steel industry group Eurofer told Reuters:

“Given the absolute necessity for Europe to diversify its sources of supply of gas and to find solutions to the huge energy price differential with its main competitors, we see no alternative but to proceed as rapidly as possible with shale gas exploitation as part of the energy mix in Europe.”

In other words, Vladimir Putin has achieved something that economists, industrialists, analysts and conservative politicians have found quite impossible: he has finally persuaded the EU that when push comes to shove, survival is a much more attractive option than meaningless obeisance to some imaginary green sky fairy.

So, Europe’s dependence upon Russian gas will reduce, even possible vanish in time.  The economic cost to Russia will be significant, since oil and gas represent one of the few forex earners for the anaemic Russian economy.  But to add cream on the cake, the asthmatic stranglehold of the Greens on Europe–a miasma thicker than Beijing smog–has been eased by a breath of fresh new air, courtesy of Vlad.  All thanks to the law of unintended consequences. 

What the hero of the former Soviet Union has accomplished in just a few short weeks is remarkable, to say the least. 

Gnashing Teeth

Impotence Over Ukraine Is Not Bad

The stew bubbling in the Ukrainian cauldron provides an occasion to reflect on how, in a more Christianised world, a nation state ought to act toward other states.  We do not claim that the issues are always easy.  They are certainly not as far as the Ukraine is concerned.  Here are some thoughts.

Firstly, nationalism (which elevates one’s nation or people group into ultimate reverence) is a great evil and a false god.  All that stuff about love of country and hymns of praise to one’s patria, is either dangerously borderline or overtly anti-Christian.  If Christians would baulk at singing hymns of praise to the nation’s president or monarch or head of state then they ought also baulk at singing stirring hymns of pride and love to “Oh my country . . . ”  Nations quickly become idols. 

It is a striking thing that Christians are called in Scripture to love God, to love the brethren and the Church, and to love all men–but never called to love one’s country.
  When examples arose of God’s people veering towards nationalism–the kind of sentiment which not only elevated Israel or Judah to an object of inordinate loyalty, but which also looked down upon other nations with arrogance,  such as was regnant in Jonah’s heart–divine rebuke swiftly followed. 

The closest you can come to it is passages like the lament in over Zion in Psalm 137 by the exiles in Babylon.  But this was a lament over God’s judgement upon Judah, His lapsed worship, and for His Kingdom, not over Judea per se–as is evidenced by the majority of exiles remaining in Babylon, even when there was opportunity to return. 

Now, of course, national anthems are not intrinsically idolatrous.  It all depends what is declared in the anthem of praise.  We believe, for example, that the New Zealand national anthem has it about right:

God of nations, at Thy feet
In the bonds of love we meet
Hear our voices, we entreat
God defend New Zealand . . .

Not a scrap of “Hail to the Chief” there.  (Incidentally, the secularists hate our national anthem, but to date have not been able to toss it on the scrap bin of secularist history.) 

Secondly, nationalism has been a provocation to many wars.  It has been a particularly bloody idol, a veritable Molech, consuming its own children.  It is not clear just how much nationalism is inflaming both Russia and the Ukraine at this time, but we hazard a guess that it is having an active influence right down into the bowels of both countries.

Thirdly, internationalism has been a provocation to many more wars still. Secular humanism spawned the era of nineteenth and twentieth century nationalism and its outworking was bloody.  But its stepchildren were more bloody still. Rationalistic ideologies, grounded in abstractions such as National Socialism or Communism, waged borderless wars.  They were genuinely international in focus and reach.  Opponents to these ideological abstractions were ruthlessly crushed both inside and outside national borders. 

The counter to these tyrannies has been the rise of international law, where effectively nations cede sovereignty and accept the powers, rules, regulations, and taxes of the United Nations.  But the counter has proved ineffectual and vain.  It has no final sanction because it has not been granted the sword–for which we are very thankful.  Were it to have been so granted, our liberty would have shrivelled up more quickly than a wilting rose in the Gobi desert. 

One upshot before us now is the frustration of the West at its impotence in the face of Russian aggression and violations of international laws and treaties.  Going to war is not an option (thankfully).  Any such war would be as illegal and wrong as Russia’s belligerence in our view: two wrongs do not make a right.  But frustration levels will run very high in the West, particularly in the United States, because impotence does not become that nation. 

Herein is a paradox.  It ought not frustrate us at all.  The whole concept of human freedom and dignity trades off doctrines of limited government.  Thus far the right wing in the US will cheer.  But limited governments necessarily must be limited not only in what they are forbidden to do with respect to their own citizens, but to other nations as well.  When the conservatives in the US rail against the impotence of their country to do anything in the Crimea or the Ukraine they are guilty of both wanting the cake and of eating it too.  It does not withstand scrutiny. 

God has given the power of the sword to the civil government.  But that power has been granted to defend its innocent citizens against evil doers.  It has not been granted to defend citizens of other countries, no matter how beleaguered or severe their plight.  We believe a Christian state should be an armed fortress–but armed only for the defence of its own citizens against aggressors.  A necessary corollary is a nettle we must willingly grasp: a Christian state will not go to the defence of citizens of another state.  A Christian state ought not to enter mutual defence treaties, even with other Christian states. 

The bottom line is this: a state and a people which are unwilling to pay the price to maintain their own defence–like New Zealand, incidentally–deserves its fate.  A Christian state has no God-given authority to make war on another state for the defence of citizens not their own. 

"Peaceful" Activism–a Greenpeace Artform

Not Playing By the Rules

We confess being guilty of the odd smile or two when news broke that Greenpeace has tilted its lance at Russia.  This is not to say, of course, that the Russian record when it comes to preservation of the environment is stellar.  Far from it.  But Greenpeace has a higher calling than ordinary human beings.  It is more than willing to disregard the law when it comes to its own particular, peculiar version of  rabid environmentalism.  When the “fragile” arctic environment was deemed to be at risk from Russian offshore drilling, Greenpeace engaged in its trademark “peaceful” protest which involved assailing and climbing up on the rig.  The Russian coastguard steamed in and arrested the lot, seizing its boat.

Now Greenpeace has been getting away with this sort of thing for years in the West.
  It blatantly disregards the law and the property rights of others, always arguing that the end of environmental purity justifies its  illegal activities of trespass, theft, destruction of  private property, and impeding others in their lawful activities.  In the West, when authorities (usually after days of delay) finally gin up sufficient courage to “escort them off the premises”, Greenpeace turns around yet again and plays the victim card.  “We were only engaged in peaceful, non-violent protest.  We are the good guys.  Big business has suborned the authorities which are persecuting the innocent.”  Blah, blah, blah.  The media dutifully write it all up, sharing in the moral outrage of the protesters. 

Now it seems things have taken a rough turn.  Greenpeace foolishly decided that it could try the same tactics on the Russians.  This, from 3News

Greenpeace says a group of activists, including two New Zealanders, has been arrested by the Russian Coast Guard during a protest in the Arctic.  The 25 people on board the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise were protesting against oil producer Gazprom’s drilling operations at the Prirazlomnaya platform. The Russian Government controls 50 percent of Gazprom through various shareholders.
According to Greenpeace, Coast Guard officials boarded their vessel using a helicopter and ropes, locking the activists inside a room on the ship. They allege some had guns pointed at them.  Greenpeace says the ship is now being back to the nearest port, which could take up to a day.  The Arctic Sunrise was circling a Gazprom drilling platform in the Pechora Sea at the time. Greenpeace says this was in international waters, making the Russian authorities’ boarding illegal. “We are a peaceful organisation and our protest has done nothing to warrant this level of aggression,” says Greenpeace International’s executive director Kumi Naidoo.
The lobby group says it was protesting against Gazprom’s disregard of the environmental dangers of deep sea drilling.
Greenpeace is a master of deception and the half-truth.  To this point in the account it would appear that the Arctic Sunrise was cheerfully sailing along in international waters minding its own business, when suddenly and unexpectedly they were beset by the Russian Coast Guard, boarded, and seized.  The aggression of the Russians was, therefore, illegal, a violation of international laws of the sea. 
Only that is not the whole truth.  The day before two little Greenpeace foot-soldiers had scaled the drilling platform.  They were the aggressive lawbreakers.  Since they had been aided and abetted by the Arctic Sunrise, the latter was complicit.  Claiming that Greenpeace was a pure as the driven snow, while Russia was acting illegally is typical of Greenpeace lies, deception, and dissembling.  We have seen and heard it all before. 

Except this time Greenpeace is not dealing with self-loathing Western authorities.  The Russians read from a very different script.  The “activists” (a word that covers a multitude of sins) are going to be charged with piracy–the maximum penalty for which is 15 years imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 roubles. 

Two activists tried to climb onto the Prirazlomnaya platform on Thursday and others assisted from small inflatable boats. The Greenpeace protest was aimed at calling attention to the environmental risks of drilling for oil in Arctic waters.  “When a foreign vessel full of electronic technical equipment of unknown purpose and a group of people calling themselves members of an environmental rights organisation try nothing less than to take a drilling platform by storm, logical doubts arise about their intentions,” Investigative Committee spokesman Vladimir Markin said in a statement.  (NZ Herald)

In Greenpeace newspeak, “peaceful activists” means their cadres do not carry guns, nor do they assault human beings.  Because they are thus “peaceful”, they are in the right.

“Peaceful activism is crucial when governments around the world have failed to respond to dire scientific warnings about the consequences of climate change in the Arctic and elsewhere,” Greenpeace International executive director Kumi Naidoo said in a statement.  “We will not be intimidated or silenced by these absurd accusations and demand the immediate release of our activists,” he added.

But they do assault the property of others, and thus are about as peaceful as a burglar, a thief, a brigand, and–yes–a pirate.  The kabuki theatre is starting to play out as normal: Greenpeace is the persecuted innocent; it needs money (usually these stunts are choreographed as major fund raising opportunities); it pressures Western government to protest the “illegal” actions of the arresting government (which usually backs down and withdraws charges or slaps the “activists” with a wet bus ticket), and Greenpeace goes on its merry way with fatter wallets.  Only this time, we suspect it is going to be different.

Turning pirates into martyrs is not likely to play with Russian authorities.  Prison sentences in Russia will be worked out in hard labour camps in Siberia.  Not a pleasant prospect.  Our prediction: Greenpeace will scrupulously avoid “environmental activism” in the Arctic for a long long time to come.  The Russian government does not know how to play the game. 

Doing evil that good may come is casuistry from the Lake of Fire.

Douglas Wilson’s Letter From Moscow

President of Presidents

I want to begin this exhortation with two qualifications. The first is that I know you have heard this point from me before. But as Paul says in Philippians, to repeat the same things over again is not a trouble to me, and it is helpful to you. Secondly, this is a word to Americans—and I know that not all of you here are Americans. You are nevertheless invited to listen in, and there are truths here that any believer may apply, making the necessary adjustments as you go.

As the recent op-ed by Vladimir Putin showed, the assumption of American exceptionalism is offensive to him. But because he is a former KGB thug, we shouldn’t really care that it is offensive to him. What we should care about is the way in which this manner of speaking might be offensive to God.


The Founding of our nation really was exceptional in many ways. God’s blessing was manifestly with us. But one of the most exceptional things about it was the fact that the men who approved our form of government were deeply suspicious of man in general, and Americans in particular. Do not trust an American with power as far as you can throw him (Art. XII). The genius of our founding framework is that it demonstrates no trust whatever in the innate goodness of all future politicians. At our founding, we knew that we were ordinary, mortal men, prone to sin and corruption. We knew that we were ordinary, and that realization was extraordinary.

But the notion of American exceptionalism that has taken root in recent days is really the photo negative of that founding vision. It seeks to separate this exceptionalism from the gospel of grace, the gospel that straightens out depraved Americans, which is quite a trick, and it wants to make this exceptionalism somehow innate with us. And this overweening conceit provokes anti-Americanism, a form of blowback which is itself just as much an enemy of grace as that which provoked it. The former says “God didn’t give us this; we did it ourselves” and the latter says “God didn’t give you that; the Great Satan did.” They both have this in common—they refuse to give glory to the living God. They refuse to show appropriate gratitude. They pretend that we must choose between proud and ungrateful and envious and ungrateful.

How about humble and grateful? That really would be extraordinary.

So you Americans who confess Christ, your ultimate allegiance, your highest allegiance is obviously to Jesus and His Bride, the City of God. To the extent that God calls you to be a partaker of this nation’s life—and He certainly does—you must learn to see every form of secularism as an idolatrous and arrogant ingratitude. So this is one litmus test with regard to whether your form of “exceptionalism” is acceptable. If it is secular, it is not.

As a people, we must hear the gospel summons, and we must return to Jesus Christ, the president of presidents.

Letter From Turtle Bay (About Russia)

Russia adopts model adoption law

Posted on | June 20, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D. 

New law protects all children in Russia against gay adoption and other forms of human trafficking 

Reacting to the disturbing fact that some Western countries have put in to place legislation that under the pretext of a “right to adoption” makes it possible to hand over innocent children to homosexual couples, Russia has enacted a new law that makes sure that such a thing cannot happen to Russian children. Under this law, Russia will prohibit adoption by foreign couples whose homeland recognizes same-sex “marriage”, as well as by single people or unmarried couples. The Duma adopted the law unanimously.

Often criticised for its poor human rights record, Russia appears to be turning into a flagship for the protection of innocent children against moral corruption.
This is urgently needed in a country where 70 years of Communism have destroyed the family and which faces an unprecedented demographic crisis with one of the lowest birth rates of the world, an extremely high incidence of abortion (which the Soviet Union was the first country to legalize), and a population loss of nearly 1 million a year. The Russian Government is bitterly aware that children are a society’s most valuable resource, and not a commodity that should be sold to those who are not willing to reproduce in a natural way.

By ruling out adoption both by homosexual couples and individual persons, Russia recognizes that what nature foresees for children is to grow up with a father and a mother. Where a child has lost one or both parents, adoption should provide it with the best possible substitute, i.e. with married parents that resemble a natural family. As the European Court of Human Rights, in one rare moment of lucidity, once recognized, adoption is about “providing a child with a family, not a family with a child”.

This new law shows full respect for the principle set out in Article 21 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, that “States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration“.

It is hoped that other countries will follow this shining example.

Shepherds, Bears, and Russia

Vlad Impales the Orphans

One of the images used in Scripture for the state is that of a shepherd.  Far from being a shepherd, the modern secular state is like a wolf that preys upon the sheep.  It has determined that some sheep need fleecing and shearing.  Others will be favoured and will receive the proceeds of the fleecing and the shearing.  The modern secular state divides the flock and sets sheep against sheep. 

When the Bible uses the image of a shepherd for the state it has particular reference to the enemies of the flock who would prey upon it.  The good shepherd defends the flock and protects it from those who would tear it to pieces.  Thus David, when contemplating the threat of Goliath to Israel, reflected upon his skill and faithfulness as a shepherd: he killed the lion and the bear that came up to devour the sheep. 

The more a government turns upon its own people, the more odious and disgusting it becomes.  We have recently witnessed one of the more egregious acts against innocent sheep.
  Vlad-the-Impaler-Putin and his cohorts have acted in a way which has harmed the interests of the most vulnerable and defenceless in Russia. 

Vlad is trying to make a name for himself in the annals of history.  He is wanting to reassert the greatness of Mother Russia.  In principle, there is nothing wrong with such an ambition.  It all depends on how one defines “greatness”.  But it rapidly descends to wickedness when you would use the most vulnerable as a tool to prosecute your ambitions. 

The breakdown of family life in Russia is notorious–a legacy of fifty years of secular state atheism.  Unwanted children are dumped in orphanages, where most live out their lives in utter misery.  Many have been adopted–particularly to families in the United States.  But Vlad has decided this must stop.  The interests and welfare of the most oppressed and vulnerable must be trampled upon.  America is the great rival; it is such a bad look having Russian orphans adopted by American families.  Therefore, he has terminated the programme.  Vlad the Impaler is driving his sharpened sticks into the wasted bodies of innocent Russian children, sacrificing them to some megalomaniac Russian nationalism. 

Many ordinary Muscovite Russians know what is going on.  They took to the streets in Moscow to protest Vlad’s latest attack upon his own people.  This from the Huffington Post:

MOSCOW — Thousands of people marched through Moscow on Sunday to protest Russia’s new law banning Americans from adopting Russian children, a far bigger number than expected in a sign that outrage over the ban has breathed some life into the dispirited anti-Kremlin opposition movement.  Shouting “shame on the scum,” protesters carried posters of President Vladimir Putin and members of Russia’s parliament who overwhelmingly voted for the law last month. Up to 20,000 took part in the demonstration on a frigid, gray afternoon. . . .

Opponents of the adoption ban argue it victimizes children to make a political point. Eager to take advantage of this anger, the anti-Kremlin opposition has played the ban as further evidence that Putin and his parliament have lost the moral right to rule Russia.

Victimising the most vulnerable children to make a political point is a wretched business.  The shepherd has become the bear: he has turned upon his own people to feast upon them, feeding his ambitions.   

Putin’s critics have likened him to King Herod, who ruled at the time of Jesus Christ’s birth and who the Bible says ordered the massacre of Jewish children to avoid being supplanted by the newborn king of the Jews.  Russia’s adoption ban was retaliation for a new U.S. law targeting Russians accused of human rights abuses.  It also addresses long-brewing resentment in Russia over the 60,000 Russian children who have been adopted by Americans in the past two decades, 19 of whom have died.

 This is how propaganda in the hands of a venal, self-serving, narcissistic government can lead people up the garden path.  The comparison with Herod is apt.  

Cases of Russian children dying or suffering abuse at the hands of their American adoptive parents have been widely publicized in Russia, and the law banning adoptions was called the Dima Yakovlev bill after a toddler who died in 2008 when he was left in a car for hours in broiling heat.  “Yes, there are cases when they are abused and killed, but they are rare,” said Sergei Udaltsov, who heads a leftist opposition group. “Concrete measures should be taken (to punish those responsible), but our government decided to act differently and sacrifice children’s fates for its political ambitions.”

 There are over 700,000 children in Russian orphanages.  Vlad-the-Impaler is willing to use them as pawns in his little game.  The shepherd has morphed into the bear and he has turned upon his own people.  Lenin redivivus. 

Double Standards

What Would Your Church Do, If . . . ?

The West’s coverage of a crude, if not blasphemous display by a female punk band in Russia has been a little off target.  But never let the facts get in the way of a good story, particularly when your lead protagonists are Madonna and Sir Paul McCartney.

Here is a piece by Terry Mattingly which puts the whole thing in its crude accurate perspective. Continue reading

>A New Russian Revolution?

>Medvedev Versus Putin

An intriguing article has just been published in Foreign Policy by Leon Aron.  Its provocative title is “Everything You Think You Know About the Collapse of the Soviet Union is Wrong“.  Its thesis is two fold. 

Firstly, the real cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union was an emergence of a strong consensus amongst the governing classes and the educated that the Soviet Union was ethically wrong.  Without this, it would never have collapsed: the Evil Empire would have rumbled on. 

Secondly, a similar conviction is emerging now in Russia, that Russia itself has to change and de-Putinize.  Watch this space.

We shall see.  We fear that the theses are grounded upon the canard that underneath the skin of every human being lies the soul of a liberal Western democrat just itching to burst forth.  Its the same world-view that is leading the Commentariate to get all excited about the “Arab Spring”.

>Coruscating Memories

>The Rotten Fruit of Humanitarian Wars

It has become fashionable amongst the Commentariate in the West to speak of a new, enlightened apologia for war. The wars of our future, Tony Blair pretentiously pontificated, would be wars based on “our values”. They would not be for grimy things like money, or territory, or national pride, or oil but would be humanitarian wars–taking up the sword to defend the human (aka Western) rights of the downtrodden around the globe. The glorious wars of the future would be those which were not in defence of any national interest. In fact, wars fought over national interests were, by Blair’s definition, evil–selfish and self-seeking. Wars fought to defend the underdogs of the globe were to be noble and glorious–and not wars at all–at least not as we once knew them.

One of the reasons the UK (and Europe generally) became so disenchanted so quickly over Tony Blair’s dalliance in Iraq was the rapidly growing conviction that the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein had little to do with a war over “our values” and much more to do with oil. In other words, it was an unjustifiable war, on Blair’s own term. He became reviled amongst the members of the Commentariate for his hypocrisy. But the seductive attraction of Blair’s “vision” lived on.

Fast forward to Libya. Here, at last, would be a noble war fought for no national interests whatsoever–only for the love of one’s fellow man, defending him against a bumptious tyrant. Alas, such wars are not new. They have been fought before in the past. The outcomes have been disastrous.

Novelist James Warner illustrates by referring us to the Russian war against Turkey in the 1870, as viewed through the eyes of (Blairite) Dostoevsky and (increasingly pacifist) Tolstoy. Warning: both were professing Christians.The money quotation comes from Solzhenitsyn at the end of the piece.

All the frogs croak before a storm: Dostoevsky versus Tolstoy on Humanitarian Interventions

Links:
[1] http://www.opendemocracy.net/russia
[2] http://www.opendemocracy.net/topics/ideas
[3] http://www.opendemocracy.net/topics/culture
[4] http://www.opendemocracy.net/topics/conflict
[5] http://www.opendemocracy.net/countries/libya
[6] http://www.opendemocracy.net/countries/russia
[7] http://www.opendemocracy.net/freeform-tags/arab-revolutions
[8] http://www.opendemocracy.net/author/james-warner-0
[9] http://www.allherfathersguns.com
[10] http://www.jameswarner.net/
[11] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
[12] http://www.opendemocracy.net/about/syndication

>A New Russian Emigration

>The Return of Pushkin’s World

We posted recently on the endemic and systemic corruption in Russia. This is of some interest to New Zealand, since we are the first country in the world to begin negotiating a free trade agreement with that country.

Here is another take: Russia is a “neo-feudal” society. The thesis is that Russia is far away from totalitarianism; individual liberty remains firmly established. The power of central government is limited. Government is decentralised. Vladislav L. Inozemtsev, writing in American Interest Online, says this describes a society that is more feudal than modern–but, he argues, it is traditional and it works, up to a point.

Contemporary Russia is not a candidate to become a Soviet Union 2.0. It is a country in which citizens have unrestricted access to information, own property, leave and return to the country freely, and develop private businesses of all kinds. Of course, severe restrictions in the political sphere remain in place, and the country, as President Dmitry Medvedev himself recently said, “only to a certain extent, not fully”, meets the standards of democracy.

Clearly, this arrangement—economic freedom coupled with political constraint—does not please everyone. To the standard American mind it suggests that something has got to give. This, too, is wrong. Some Russians do give voice to dissatisfaction with the current regime and the widespread abuse of power by police authorities, local officials and oligarchs closely connected with the ruling bureaucracy. Yet the system seems fundamentally solid and durable. Its strength emanates from a basic principle: It is much easier for subjects to solve their problems individually than to challenge national institutions collectively. This is because what Westerners would call corruption is not a scourge of the system but the basic principle of its normal functioning. Corruption in Russia is a form of transactional grease in the absence of any generally accepted and legally codified alternative. Taken together, these transactions well describe a form of neo-feudalism. This should not be terribly surprising to the historically aware, for that was more or less the stage that Russian socio-economic development had reached when it was frozen by more than seventy years of Communist rule. It has now thawed.

In this system, bribery is more paying for protection and governance. This functions like paying tribute to one’s feudal lord, in return for protection and some assistance.

At every level of the hierarchy a certain degree of bribery and clientalist parochialism is not only tolerated but presupposed in exchange for unconditional loyalty and a part of the take for one’s superiors. The system is based on the economic freedom of its citizens, but cautious political restrictions on these freedoms generate the wealth of the biggest beneficiaries. There is a cascade of floors and ceilings to the restrictions on freedom, so it is a feudalism with more levels than the old kind. But it works fundamentally the same way: The weak pay tribute “up”, and the strong provide protection “down.”

Inozemtsev goes on to argue that the governing elites in Russia have become progressively more incompetent and less educated. They are more and more time-servers. He describes a world that roughly resembles that portrayed in Pushkin’s short stories. His description is eerily familiar to any who have read Pushkin. Russia appears to be operating in a manner not far removed from the old imperial tsarist system.

Clearly, Russia’s current political elite is dramatically less competent than the Soviet bureaucratic class used to be, but signs of its de-professionalization can be found throughout society. Today, only 14 percent of those graduating from Russian universities specialize in engineering. In Germany it is 29 percent, and in China it is close to 42 percent. Because of the lack of professional credentials, careers are made mostly due to personal relationships; experience and performance really don’t matter. The CEO of Gazprom, Alexei Miller, had no experience in energy businesses when he was appointed to the top position in the company. Even with gas prices soaring, Gazprom’s production fell from 523.2 billion cubic meters in 2000 to 461.5 billion in 2009. The CEO of Rosatom, former Prime Minister Sergei Kirienko, has no experience in the nuclear sector. Only one of the 11 new nuclear reactors he promised to install in Russia when he was appointed in 2005 has been put into operation.

What does the galloping de-professionalization of the Russian elite actually mean? Lately, it has meant that becoming a lifelong bureaucrat is extremely popular. That’s where the money is.

One outcome of this is an emerging feudal plutocracy. In old Russia, position and power was based on land, hereditary titles, and military commissions. In new Russia it is based on government service and oil-extracted wealth.

The second trend is even more obvious: Money today cannot only be “extracted” from the public service sector; it can also buy influential positions in the power elite. For example, there are more than 49 “official” U.S. dollar millionaires and six billionaires sitting in the state Duma, and 28 millionaires and five billionaires in the Council of the Federation. In contrast, Silvio Berlusconi is the only billionaire ever to win a seat in any parliament of any of the original 15 EU countries. Since the Duma and the Council of the Federation are composed of deputies handpicked by the Kremlin, one need not strain oneself to imagine how these super-rich people acquired their offices. They pay “up” with both lucre and loyalty, and they are protected “down”—a hallmark of feudal social exchange. At the same time, the majority of Russian ministers are trying to convince ordinary citizens that their average official income is less than $100,000 a year. Whether or not anyone believes them, there are no indebted Ministers or bankrupt Governors to be found in the country these days.

Another emerging trend is familial nepotism.

Sons and daughters of top officials actively insinuate themselves into government bodies, as well as into the staff of big state-owned and state-controlled corporations. For example, Dmitry Patrushev, the eldest son of Nikolay Patrushev, the Director of the FSB from 1999–2008, was in May 2010, at the age of 32, appointed as the CEO of state-controlled Rosselkhozbank, the fourth largest bank in Russia. Sergei Matvienko, son of Valentina Matvienko, the Governor of St. Petersburg, is now chairman of VTB-Development, the real estate branch of the state-owned VTB Bank and, at the age of 37, is one of the youngest Russian billionaires. Sergei Ivanov, son of the aforementioned Deputy Prime Minister, had just turned 25 when he was appointed vice president of Gazprombank, Gazprom’s financial arm, and so on. One can be sure that the children of the current top Russian bureaucrats will occupy at least a third of all significant positions in government and management in ten to 15 years. And it is clear that none of them will have the slightest incentive to change the system. They will strongly oppose any change so that they may favor their children. They are the barons in the new feudalism, and their children are to the manor born.

In insular tsarist Russia, emigres could be found throughout Europe. The same is happening today. The best and the brightest, unable to advance through the suffocating blankets of family controlled bureaucracies and government structures, leave.

What about Russia’s best and brightest? What future do they have in a neo-feudal Russia? During the Putin years, government officials made it ever more difficult for liberal young people to engage in any form of legal protest activity. No new political party has officially registered itself in the Russian Federation since the beginning of the 2000s (the two that have been registered, Just Russia and Right Cause, represent a mere allocation of smaller parties that existed previously). Organizing a referendum requires the collection of two million signatures, and even if this requirement were met, most would be declared invalid. All but one regional legislative assembly is controlled by the United Russia Party. At the same time, the government still allows people to leave the country freely. This is no accident. The scale of the outflow of the most talented young prospective professionals from Russia is almost beyond belief. The numbers are not known exactly, but estimates run as high as 40,000–45,000 per year, and about three million Russian citizens today are expatriates in the European Union.

The conclusion:

The Russian elite has essentially “piratized” and privatized one of the world’s richest countries. It is so grateful for this privilege that it may insist on Mr. Putin’s return to the Kremlin in 2012 for 12 more dismal years. By then the young liberal cohorts on whom so many Western analysts pinned their hopes for change will have grown up. The mediocre among them will be part of the system. Most of the best of them, no doubt, will no longer reside in Russia.

Behind all this, we suspect, lie the failings and weaknesses of the Russian Orthodox Church which seeks to lock the faith into timelessness, having little or no sense of historical development and the progressive Christianisation of the earth. This “other worldliness” enabled the Orthodox Church to survive Stalin, but it is unable to transform Russia into a thoroughly Christian country. Consequently, nepotists fill the vacuum.

>Updating "The Russians"

>Mob Rule, But Not as We Know It, Jim

In the late seventies, Hedrick Smith’s The Russians was published.  http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jtertullian&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0345317467&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrIt was a sensation amongst the commentariate.  For most Russians, it turned out, life in Russia was the pits.  The blurb said, “Russia is secretive, enigmatic–only the most ingenious observer can penetrate the veil of official statistics and guided tours to discover what it is really like to live there.  Hedrick Smith, for three years the New York Times correspondent in Moscow and winner of America’s coveted Pulitzer Prize, had done just that.”  Smith’s book gave credence and substance to Reagan’s subsequent characterisation of Soviet Russia as the “Evil Empire”.  Smith’s work, it turns out, has not dated as one might have expected.

But things have changed now.  Russia is very different from what it once was.  Yes, and no.  An update on Smith’s The Russians has been written by Peter Pomerantsev–well, actually, an entertaining essay–and published in The London Review of Books.  It is well worth reading.

Pomerantsev was hired to work in a Russian TV productions company whose objective was to make a killing by transposing Western reality show formats and concepts into Russia, producing Russian versions of  shows like The Apprentice.  In his hilarious, yet Chekov-like tragic account, he describes first of all the “accounting” arrangements of the new company.
 

Our grey warehouse building had no sign, no number on the black metal door. Behind the door was a dirty, draughty, prison-like room where you were met by a bored, unsober guard who would look at you each day as if you were a stranger encroaching on his living space. To get to our office you had to walk down an unlit concrete corridor and turn sharp right up two flights of narrow stairs at the top of which you were confronted by another black, unmarked metal door. There you rang the bell and an unfriendly voice would come through the intercom: ‘Who are you?’ The question was ridiculous: the guard on the other side of the door could see you on his monitor – he saw you every day. But still he asked and still you answered, waving your passport at where you guessed the spy camera to be. Then came the beep-beep-beep of the door being opened and you were inside Potemkin Productions.

Suddenly you were back in a Western office with Ikea furniture and lots of twentysomethings in jeans and bright T-shirts running around with coffees, cameras and props. It could have been any television production office anywhere in the world. But there was a difference. Going past the reception desk, the conference room, coffee bar and casting department, you reached a closed white door. Many would turn back at this point, thinking they’d seen the whole office. But tap in a code and you entered a much larger set of rooms: here the producers and their assistants sat and argued, here the accountants glided around with spreadsheets and solemnity, and here were the loggers – rows of young girls staring at screens as their hyperactive fingers typed out interviews and dialogue from rushes. At the end of this office was another door. Tap in another code and you entered the editing suites: little cells where directors and video editors sweated and swore at one another. And beyond that was the final, most important and least conspicuous of all the inconspicuous doors, with a code that few people knew: it led to the office of Tim and Ivan, and the room where the real accounts were kept. This whole elaborate set-up was intended to foil the tax police. That’s who it was the guards’ job to keep out, or keep out long enough for the back office to be cleared and the hidden back entrance put to good use.

I asked Ivan whether all this was necessary. Couldn’t he just pay his taxes? He laughed. If he did that, he said, there would be no profit at all. No entrepreneur paid their taxes in full: it wouldn’t occur to them. Taxes, he said, were just a way for bureaucrats to buy themselves holidays in Thailand. As for the tax police, they were much happier taking bribes than going to the trouble of stealing money that had been paid in the orthodox fashion. In any case, Ivan’s profits were already squeezed by the broadcasters. Around 15 per cent of any budget went to the guy at the channel who commissioned the programme: in Russian these kick-backs are known as otkat, ‘backwash’. A British producer who refused to pay the ‘backwash’ was out of the country within a year.

Most of the reality shows Pomerantsev was hired to produce flopped.  Why, one wonders, did the Russian equivalent shows of “Big Brother” and “Next Top Model”–such commercial wonders in the West–go down the proverbial sewer? 

I had been hired by Potemkin as a development producer. My job was to meet with creative directors and commissioning editors and persuade them to take our shows. Russian channels come in two groups. First the behemoths: Channel One, Rossiya-1 and NTV, known as the Central Channels. These are the battering rams of Kremlin propaganda, huge corporations quartered in a Soviet-era building the size of five football pitches. Meetings involved walking down miles of brown corridors, to a smoke-filled boardroom where a producer would quite comfortably say: ‘We need something to keep the nation pacified. The financial crisis has the Kremlin worried. Ideas?’ The other group was made up of the entertainment channels: TNT, STS, MTV. They didn’t touch news or politics, and were left to their own devices. Here the offices were open-plan, full of gaudy, glossy Muscovites who looked as if they’d just jumped out of a fashion magazine. Most had a background in advertising and marketing, had worked for Western firms, spent time in London and New York, spoke English. This was the new, desperately Western Russia unhampered by the past, and these were the channels I was meant to focus on. The vogue everywhere was for non-scripted, reality-based television – The Apprentice, Next Top Model, Big Brother. These shows had been successfully remade across the globe: they were sure-fire formulas that would work anywhere. Russian channels followed the pack, bought the rights, and asked Potemkin to help make them. Russians loved Mercedes cars and Benetton jumpers: surely they’d love Western television shows too? We were wrong. Most of the shows flopped.

The fundamental premise for most Western reality shows is what people in the industry call ‘aspirational’: someone works hard and is rewarded with a wonderful new life. The shows celebrate the outstanding individual, the bright extrovert. For the Russian version of The Apprentice, Vladimir Potanin, a metals oligarch worth more than $10 billion, was recruited to be the boss choosing between the candidates competing for the dream job. Potanin goaded, teased and tortured the candidates as they went through increasingly difficult challenges. The show looked great, the stories and dramas all worked, but there was a problem: no one in Russia believed in the rules. The usual way to get a job in Russia is not by impressing at an interview, but by what is known as blat – ‘connections’. Russian society isn’t much interested in the hard-working, brilliant young business mind. Everyone knows where that type ends up: in jail like Mikhail Khodorkovsky, or in exile like the mobile phone billionaire Yevgeny Chichvarkin.

Today’s Russia rewards the man who operates from the shadows, the grey apparatchik, the master of the politique de couloir – the man like Putin. Promotion in such a system comes from knowing how to debase yourself, how to suck up and serve your master, how to be what the Russians call a holop, a ‘toady’. Bright and extrovert and aspirational? Not if you want success. The shows that did work were based on a quite different set of principles. By far the biggest success was Posledny Geroi (‘The Last Hero’), a version of Survivor, a show based on humiliation and hardship. This chimed in Russia – a country where being bullied by the authorities is the norm.

It turns out that the fundamental problem with reality shows in Russia is that everyone in Russia knows that everything in public life is scripted.  Thus reality shows lacked, well, reality. 

What’s Russia’s problem with reality? The basic principle of reality-based programming is that the audience believes the characters are having real experiences, that the action is not predetermined. The producer’s skill lies in nudging and manipulating the heroes into behaving in an interesting way. Russian channel heads refused to countenance the idea that you could make ‘reality’ programmes which weren’t scripted beforehand. ‘Of course it’s all fake,’ audiences complained, and usually they were right. Towards the end of Putin’s second presidential term, while ‘scripted reality’ was playing out on television, the Kremlin’s propaganda team, led by the former TV executive Vladislav Surkov, was inventing a new political system for Russia called ‘managed democracy’: something that looked like democracy, with political parties and elections, but where the behaviour of the main players was scripted beforehand by the president’s men. No one in the audience believed that show either.

In Russia, the news is heavily scripted by the State.  Just as in the Soviet Union, no-one believes it.  Everyone plays out a ridiculous charade.  Here is Pomerantsev’s description of the standard evening news motif.

Heavy-duty propaganda is of course most evident on the news, which generally adheres to a strict formula. Item one features the president visiting somewhere – a hospital, a school, a farm. Item two is a serious piece of national news: forest fires, economic problems. Item three is a piece of foreign news, chosen to show that Russia’s problems are nothing compared with other countries’: if the Russian piece has been about forest fires, the next item will be about forest fires in Australia or the US; if the Russian news has been about economic problems, the next item will focus on economic problems in the West. The final item is always a happy piece: a tiger cub born in a zoo, Russian victory at the Eurovision Song Contest.

But despite its best attempts at scripting and propaganda, Russia cannot help but betray its governing reality: it is a gangster state.  It eerily resembles what you would expect if the mob had taken over the government.

Another news-programme favourite has the president sitting at the head of a long table while along the sides sit the governors of every region: the western, central, north-eastern and so on. The president points to each in turn and each in turn tells him what’s going on on his patch. ‘Rogue terrorists, pensions unpaid, fuel shortages …’ The governors look petrified. The president toys with them: ‘Well, if you can’t sort out the mess in your backyard, we can always find a different governor …’ For a long time I wasn’t sure what this scene reminded me of, then I realised: it’s taken straight from the moment in The Godfather when Marlon Brando gathers the heads of the New York clans to discuss business. Tarantino repeats the device when Lucy Liu meets the Yakuza heads in Kill Bill – it’s a trope in gangster movies. I doubt this is coincidence. Putin’s PR men dress him like a crime boss (the black polo top underneath the black suit) and his soundbites come straight out of gangster movies (‘we’ll shoot the enemy while he’s on the shitter …’). I can see the logic. Who do the people respect most? Gangsters. Which movies do they like most? Gangster movies. The difference between Putin and Medvedev is that whereas Putin played (and plays) the role convincingly, the new president looks like a prefect taking part in a school production of Bugsy Malone.

One recalls that just a couple of weeks ago, in response to the Moscow airport bombings, Putin vowed “retribution” in that gravelly voice.  He is, of course, famous for vowing ten years ago that blood would flow in Chechnya and that the perpetrators of the violence that killed Russia’s strongman in the region would be “shot in the outhouse”.  Shades of the Corleone Family.  Life imitating art.  Or, maybe in the case of Putin’s Russia, art is imitating life.

If New Zealand’s pursues its free trade agreement with Russia–a world-first, you know–we could end up being the first national state to do business with the Mob.  One wonders if the New Zealand government is going to follow its own “Know Your Client” rules and avoid the embarrassment of being suckered into one of the biggest money-laundering scams in history.   

>When Force is the First and Only Response. . .

. . . Bad Things Happen

CNN has been reporting that the Russian government has its Islamic rebels well in hand. We were reduced to incredulity when their “expert” assured the world that the success of Russian government policies was “demonstrated” by the insurgency spreading to other areas beyond Chechnya.

The recent terrorist bombing at Moscow airport apparently highlights why Moscow is winning the war. The government has been so successful in dealing to the insurgency in Chechnya that it has been forced to decamp and set up in neighbouring states. Clearly their commentator is a direct lineal descendant of Pollyanna.

Here is a grimmer, but more realistic assessment from National Review Online:

Between Scylla and Charybdis
Posted on January 25, 2011 
The devastating attack at Moscow’s Domodedovo Airport demonstrates the hopeless situation of ordinary Russians who are caught in an escalating conflict between terrorists and a Russian government that is doing everything possible to fill the terrorists’ ranks.

There was no early claim of responsibility for the Domodedovo attack which left 35 dead and 41 critically wounded. There is little doubt, however, that the bombing was the work of radical Islamists who have promised to create an Islamic state including all of the North Caucasus.

In the days ahead, the Russian regime will treat the Domodedovo attack as an example of the need for the West to give it its support. What it will seek to hide, however, is its own role in creating a terrorist threat in the North Caucasus. There were moderate alternatives in the North Caucasus region but they were systematically destroyed.

The first invasion of Chechnya in 1994 was authorized by President Yeltsin, who refused to negotiate with Chechen separatists although their maximum demands amounted to a form of autonomy. The resulting war led to tens of thousands of civilian deaths.

The second invasion of Chechnya came in 1999 after a series of mysterious bombings of four Russian apartment buildings that left 300 dead. The bombings were attributed to the Chechens. But when a fifth bomb was discovered in the basement of a building in the city of Ryazan, the persons who planted it turned out to be not Chechens but agents of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB).

The elected president of Chechnya, Aslan Maskhadov, ruled during the period between the two wars. He was opposed to terrorism. In March, 2005, he proclaimed a unilateral cease fire in an effort to induce Moscow to agree to talks. The Russians, however, refused to negotiate and Maskhadov was killed weeks later.

Maskhadov was succeeded by Doka Umarov, one of his top commanders. Like Maskhadov, Umarov rejected terrorism and specifically condemned the Beslan school hostage-taking in September 2004. In the meantime, however, Russia installed Ramzan Kadyrov, a former resistance fighter, as president of Chechnya and he consolidated his grip on power with the help of a reign of terror.

By 2007, the insurgency in Chechnya had been largely suppressed. Umarov, under pressure from Islamic radicals who were growing in strength, abandoned the drive for Chechen independence and called for a North Caucasus Islamic state. The drive for independence from Russia, once confined to Chechnya, spread out to embrace the entire region. Russia reacted by installing corrupt local leaders whose murderous tactics fueled the insurgency.

Ostensibly in response to Russian atrocities, Umarov turned to terror. In a video address, he warned that “blood will not only flow in our cities and villages” but also in the streets of Russia. He took credit for the bombing of the Nevsky Express Moscow to St. Petersburg express train in November, 2009 in which 27 were killed and for the attack in March, 2010 by two female suicide bombers on Moscow metro stations that killed 38. He said that the attacks on the Moscow metro were revenge for the killing by security forces of 18 villagers near the Chechen-Ingush border. There were reports that all of them were innocent civilians.

In 2000, Putin promised to “destroy the terrorists in their outhouses.” After the attacks on the Moscow metro, he said that he would reach the terrorists “in their sewers.” Despite these and other bloodcurdling threats, the danger from terrorism in Russia has only grown, from 130 terrorist acts in 2000 to more than 750 today. On May 13, 2010, Medvedev demanded the destruction of terrorists who resisted while being arrested. In light of previous Russian practice, this order will almost lead to the murder of innocent civilians.

The North Caucasus is a time bomb for Russia. Its future can only be decided on the basis of self determination. In the meantime, Russia’s attempt to impose its will will be futile and ordinary Russians will pay the price for their country’s penchant for trying to resolve all questions by force.

David Satter is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a fellow of the Foreign Policy Institute of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His next book on Russia’s Communist past will be published this fall by Yale University Press.