Friends of the Secular Café: Forums
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Talk Freethought
Rational Skepticism Forum
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Creation
Living Nonreligion Discussion Forum
The Round Table (RatPags)
Talk Rational!
Blogs
Blue Collar Atheist
Camels With Hammers
Ebonmuse: Daylight Atheism
Nontheist Nexus
The Re-Enlightenment
Rosa Rubicondior
The Skeptical Zone
Watching the Deniers
Others
Christianity Disproved
Count Me Out
Ebon Musings
Freethinker.co.uk
 
       

Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Politics & World Events

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 17 Sep 2017, 04:50 PM   #676855 / #1
Ajay0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 114
Default Why is Russia not yet a force for democracy, human rights, freedom of speech, uncensored media...

So this is a question I have been pondering on for some time.

Why is Russia not yet a force for democracy, human rights, freedom of speech, free uncensored press and media, even a quarter of a century later after the collapse of the U.S.S.R?

A truly democratic Russia could have easily taken much of the load of the west in their evangelical zeal and objective of promoting democracy all over the east, especially in china and north korea ! A Russia firmly established in democracy and its allied institutions could have created a domino effect all over Asia and further reduce the support base for dictatorships over there.

So why is Russia still an undeveloped democracy !

Is it because of the continued existence of Nato, whom Chomsky has stated is put in place to highlight the perceived Russian threat to Europe, and whom the Russians perceive as a threat themselves though they had emphasized their own european identity and bonds with european culture !

Is it because the west assumed a condescending position to its former enemy and dictated terms to it, instead of sitting together as friends and discussing the institutional work needed to entrench a culture of democracy , human rights and a free press and media in the country !

Had there been flawed western thought and action policies that lead to Russian democracy going down in a downward spiral, with the constant election of hegemonistic leaders like Putin and Medvedev bent on expansionism !

Under Yeltsin, Russia was quite friendly and receptive to the west. So what did went wrong later on ?
__________________
Self-awareness is yoga. - Nisargadatta Maharaj

Evil is an extreme manifestation of human unconsciousness. - Eckhart Tolle
Ajay0 is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 17 Sep 2017, 05:11 PM   #676857 / #2
praxis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,402
Default

American businesses and politicians took advantage of Yeltsin's kindness and trust and began to rape and pillage the country, I believe that's when Putin stepped in and closed the door to protect his country and its people.

As for all the NATO bullshit, I think that's mostly American propaganda. I doubt today's Russia is anything like the American intelligence and media make it out to be.
praxis is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 17 Sep 2017, 05:38 PM   #676858 / #3
Roo St. Gallus
Loose Contact
 
Roo St. Gallus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 8,077
Default

Imposition of the 'Shock Doctrine' and Chicago School economics, followed by what you might expect, elitist social structures and painful economic disparity.
__________________
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!
Roo St. Gallus is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 18 Sep 2017, 05:59 AM   #676875 / #4
dancer_rnb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,227
Default

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Russia has a long history of authoritarian rule.
Look at the revival of the Russian Orthodox Church.
__________________
There is no such thing as "politically correct." It's code for liberalism. The whole idea of "political correctness" was a brief academic flash-in-the-pan in the early 1990's, but has been a good conservative bugaboo ever since.
dancer_rnb is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 19 Sep 2017, 01:22 AM   #676900 / #5
Copernicus
Industrial Linguist
Admin; Mod: Miscellaneous Discussions, Philosophy & Morality, Politics & World Events
 
Copernicus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 7,495
Default

Boris Yeltsin had a shot at introducing reforms after he rode that tank that fired on the White House building in Moscow. However, he was a former Communist Party apparatchik who was more in love with vodka bottles and prostitutes than actual democratic reforms. After the anti-corruption movement started going after him, he hired former KGB apparatchik, Vladimir Putin, to help him fight them off. Putin, far more competent than Yeltsin, got Yeltsin to resign on New Years Eve during Millennium celebrations. Since then, Vladimir Putin and his corrupt regime have been the reason.
Copernicus is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Sep 2017, 07:57 AM   #676981 / #6
lpetrich
Smart Designer
SysAdmin; Mod: LU&E, C&AS
 
lpetrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 14,427
Default

Commanding Heights : Joseph Stiglitz | on PBS -- its privatization of state assets under Yeltsin's rule was a flop. Well-connected people profited enormously and became a new class of oligarchs, while ordinary people's standards of living dropped dramatically.

So Yeltsin's presidency ended up looking like a rerun of the 1917 Provisional Government. That government was the closest that Russia had come to democracy, but it insisted on continuing something very burdensome for Russia: continuing to fight in the Great War, as WWI was then called. But Britain, France, and the US likely wanted Russia to continue, because that would continue to tie up some of the Central Powers' armies.

Likewise, the screwed-up privatization and economic shock therapy was something wanted by the Western powers -- their economists and development agencies, like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

As the Provisional Government was followed by the Bolsheviks taking over, so Boris Yeltsin was followed by Vladimir Putin. Early in his presidency, Putin showed the oligarchs who's boss, by sending Mikhail Khodorkovsky to jail for several years.
lpetrich is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 22 Sep 2017, 03:02 AM   #677010 / #7
Peanut
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,168
Default

Because it's run by the guys who want to run things and skim the cream off the top - just like every other country.
Why would you expect it to be any different?
Peanut is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 18 Dec 2017, 08:52 AM   #682201 / #8
Ajay0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 114
Default

Considering the facts that the Russians had the world’s greatest writers in Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, and also gentlemen of correct judgement like Stanislav Petrov and Vasili Arkhipov, whom at critical moments prevented a nuclear holocaust (which would have wiped the western civilization out of existence), I think the west owed Russia enough to ensure that ( after the 1990 revolution) Russia emerged as a liberal, humane democracy along with a strong economy . This would also have effectively prevented any such future scenarios of a nuclear holocaust taking place.

That the western civilization is still in existence and not a radioactive wasteland is a major stroke of luck really. Let’s hope it keeps that way.
Ajay0 is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 18 Dec 2017, 05:53 PM   #682209 / #9
Hermit
Metierioric fail
 
Hermit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6,101
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajay0 View Post
Considering the facts that the Russians had the world’s greatest writers in Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky...
Fact? I'll have you know that there are at least a couple of dozen countries that had the world's greatest writers. Shakespeare, Dante, Camus, Goethe, Vonnegut, Joyce, Steinbeck. Laotsu, Borges, Naipaul...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajay0 View Post
I think the west owed Russia enough to ensure that ( after the 1990 revolution) Russia emerged as a liberal, humane democracy along with a strong economy .
Russia is not a liberal, humane democracy. Opponents have an unfortunate habit of headbutting bullets, especially if they are reporters, or getting charged with corruption/tax evasion if they are wealthy. Its homosexuals would also disagree with your assessment. At best its ruling strata can be called a kleptocracy.

And economically Russia is a basket case, especially since the Saudis have engineered the price of oil into the cellar in order to weaken Iran.

Last edited by Hermit; 18 Dec 2017 at 06:03 PM.
Hermit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 18 Dec 2017, 07:34 PM   #682212 / #10
BWE
twisting truth since 1957
 
BWE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
Posts: 9,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
American businesses and politicians took advantage of Yeltsin's kindness and trust and began to rape and pillage the country, I believe that's when Putin stepped in and closed the door to protect his country and its people.

As for all the NATO bullshit, I think that's mostly American propaganda. I doubt today's Russia is anything like the American intelligence and media make it out to be.
I know quite a few local expat Russians who have given me their take. Being expats, they are probably slanted some but their collective opinion is that Putin is a dictator and Russia is not a democracy. A lady who now works as a janitor for a public agency here was a translator in Russia whose husband was killed in a mafia killing which I infer was a fairly routine thing in Kiev around 2009 when it happened. She took her 11 year old boy here immediately after the killing. Apparently he had been recruited under pain of having her killed too so she figured out a way to leave town at night and get a sponsor here and get the hell out of dodge.

Her basic take is that the economic divide is being massively aggravated by current policies and that the scariest thing in Kiev around where she lived was the police because you didn't know which syndicate any specific officer answered to.

Her boy has grown into quite a trouble maker here. I feel sorry for him in lots of ways. His cultural assumptions are pretty incompatible with those of Portland. Anyway, as an anecdote, it's seen as typical among the other Russians I know.
BWE is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 19 Dec 2017, 03:39 AM   #682221 / #11
Ajay0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajay0 View Post
Considering the facts that the Russians had the worldÂ’s greatest writers in Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky...
Fact? I'll have you know that there are at least a couple of dozen countries that had the world's greatest writers. Shakespeare, Dante, Camus, Goethe, Vonnegut, Joyce, Steinbeck. Laotsu, Borges, Naipaul...
Except for Shakespeare, none of the rest are in the same class as Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky.

Mahatma Gandhi even credited Tolstoy for vital ideas in shaping up his civil disobedience movement which was later used by the likes of Martin Luther King and Mandela and others.

Also Russia is not a country like America or Australia that has sprouted recently. It has a rich history of its own and has made great contributions to world civilization and culture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajay0 View Post
I think the west owed Russia enough to ensure that ( after the 1990 revolution) Russia emerged as a liberal, humane democracy along with a strong economy .
Russia is not a liberal, humane democracy. Opponents have an unfortunate habit of headbutting bullets, especially if they are reporters, or getting charged with corruption/tax evasion if they are wealthy. Its homosexuals would also disagree with your assessment. At best its ruling strata can be called a kleptocracy.

And economically Russia is a basket case, especially since the Saudis have engineered the price of oil into the cellar in order to weaken Iran.
Whatever you have stated is just the result of the careless and insensitive handling of Russia by the west in its infantile days as a democracy, and which did not work diligently to build up its fledging institutions and culture of free press, democracy ,civil rights etc and which has now created the totalitarian Russia we see now. There is nothing much more to it even if you can't see otherwise.

Last edited by Ajay0; 19 Dec 2017 at 03:51 AM.
Ajay0 is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 19 Dec 2017, 04:04 AM   #682222 / #12
Hermit
Metierioric fail
 
Hermit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6,101
Default

Opinions noted.
Hermit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 19 Dec 2017, 06:04 AM   #682223 / #13
BWE
twisting truth since 1957
 
BWE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
Posts: 9,651
Default

Tolstoy had some chops but it's just silly to place him on the same level as Vonnegut
BWE is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 19 Dec 2017, 06:58 AM   #682224 / #14
Hermit
Metierioric fail
 
Hermit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6,101
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
Tolstoy had some chops but it's just silly to place him on the same level as Vonnegut
STFU or I'll go all pomo on you!
Hermit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 19 Dec 2017, 09:31 AM   #682225 / #15
BWE
twisting truth since 1957
 
BWE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
Posts: 9,651
Default

As brer rabbit said, don't throw me in the briar patch
BWE is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 19 Dec 2017, 09:51 AM   #682226 / #16
Hermit
Metierioric fail
 
Hermit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6,101
Default

OK, OK. How about I'll go all porno on you?
Hermit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 19 Dec 2017, 12:55 PM   #682230 / #17
subsymbolic
screwtape
Mod: Philosophy & Morality, Smoking Section
 
subsymbolic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: under the gnomon
Posts: 13,369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
OK, OK. How about I'll go all porno on you?
Pics or it didn't happen
subsymbolic is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 19 Dec 2017, 01:40 PM   #682231 / #18
Hermit
Metierioric fail
 
Hermit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6,101
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by subsymbolic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
OK, OK. How about I'll go all porno on you?
Pics or it didn't happen
Don't you know what an offer is? Moreover, it's an offer I may renege on, what with, you know, the forum rules, and the fact that my ex partner, who took some of the pics, wouldn't like me to post them?

Anyway: Tolstoy was a hopeless mystic who only ever liked a 6 x 2 foot plot of land and borscht, and the only thing Dostoyevsky ever liked in his short life, apart from religion, was his own navel.

Last edited by Hermit; 19 Dec 2017 at 01:51 PM.
Hermit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 19 Dec 2017, 02:25 PM   #682238 / #19
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
American businesses and politicians took advantage of Yeltsin's kindness and trust and began to rape and pillage the country, I believe that's when Putin stepped in and closed the door to protect his country and its people.

As for all the NATO bullshit, I think that's mostly American propaganda. I doubt today's Russia is anything like the American intelligence and media make it out to be.
I know quite a few local expat Russians who have given me their take. Being expats, they are probably slanted some but their collective opinion is that Putin is a dictator and Russia is not a democracy. A lady who now works as a janitor for a public agency here was a translator in Russia whose husband was killed in a mafia killing which I infer was a fairly routine thing in Kiev around 2009 when it happened. She took her 11 year old boy here immediately after the killing. Apparently he had been recruited under pain of having her killed too so she figured out a way to leave town at night and get a sponsor here and get the hell out of dodge.

Her basic take is that the economic divide is being massively aggravated by current policies and that the scariest thing in Kiev around where she lived was the police because you didn't know which syndicate any specific officer answered to.

Her boy has grown into quite a trouble maker here. I feel sorry for him in lots of ways. His cultural assumptions are pretty incompatible with those of Portland. Anyway, as an anecdote, it's seen as typical among the other Russians I know.
This. The Russian mob was already a driving force—driving the black market, which under the USSR was pretty much the ONLY market—and with the power vacuum in place, they took over, which in turn meant kapos like Putin then took them over. Though there are some who say Putin was always running them and that’s how he rose so quickly to power.

Putin is like Miscavige to Yeltsin’s L. Ron Hubbard.
__________________
Stupidity is not intellen
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 19 Dec 2017, 08:52 PM   #682245 / #20
BWE
twisting truth since 1957
 
BWE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
Posts: 9,651
Default

I am always leery of overgeneralizing, especially in the context of a country as big as Russia, but it seems fair to say that the mafia is at least a significant element of Russian life.
BWE is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 20 Dec 2017, 12:19 AM   #682249 / #21
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,374
Default

Can’t vouch for the source, but I think an accurate assessment.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Dec 2017, 06:44 PM   #682307 / #22
Loren Pechtel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,982
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
Commanding Heights : Joseph Stiglitz | on PBS -- its privatization of state assets under Yeltsin's rule was a flop. Well-connected people profited enormously and became a new class of oligarchs, while ordinary people's standards of living dropped dramatically.
As with most such "reforms", it's about giving the assets to cronies. The state assets were basically transferred to the people that ran the old system--but now without even the pretense of taking care of the people. The corruption has just gotten worse with time.
Loren Pechtel is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 30 Dec 2017, 01:30 AM   #682438 / #23
espritch
Senior Member
 
espritch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,700
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
American businesses and politicians took advantage of Yeltsin's kindness and trust and began to rape and pillage the country, I believe that's when Putin stepped in and closed the door to protect his country and its people.
As far as I can tell, it wasn't American businesses that took advantage of Glasnost, it was the Russian oligarchs. a small number of Russians got very very wealthy while most Russians saw very little benefit. Putin was the most successful of the oligarchs. He is one of the wealthiest people in the world and translated that wealth into near absolute political power. Putin didn't close the door to protect his country. He closed it to consolidate his power.
espritch is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 31 Dec 2017, 09:20 PM   #682466 / #24
Copernicus
Industrial Linguist
Admin; Mod: Miscellaneous Discussions, Philosophy & Morality, Politics & World Events
 
Copernicus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 7,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by espritch View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by praxis View Post
American businesses and politicians took advantage of Yeltsin's kindness and trust and began to rape and pillage the country, I believe that's when Putin stepped in and closed the door to protect his country and its people.
As far as I can tell, it wasn't American businesses that took advantage of Glasnost, it was the Russian oligarchs. a small number of Russians got very very wealthy while most Russians saw very little benefit. Putin was the most successful of the oligarchs. He is one of the wealthiest people in the world and translated that wealth into near absolute political power. Putin didn't close the door to protect his country. He closed it to consolidate his power.
A better way to look at it is that Yeltsin was a corrupt alcoholic who hired Putin to help him to dig up dirt to discredit enemies. While he was at it, Putin also dug up dirt on Yeltsin, who suddenly and mysteriously resigned on New Years Eve in 2000 so that Putin could take over. Putin is now often regarded as the richest man in the world, not just one of the richest.

See, for example, Fortune's article Vladimir Putin Is Reportedly Richer Than Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos Combined
Copernicus is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 31 Dec 2017, 11:19 PM   #682469 / #25
praxis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,402
Default

Quote:
At the recent U.S.-Russian Investment Symposium at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, Yuri Luzhkov, the Mayor of Moscow, made what might have seemed to many an impolite reference to his hosts. After castigating Chubais and his monetarist policies, Luzhkov, according to a report of the event, “singled out Harvard for the harm inflicted on the Russian economy by its advisers, who encouraged Chubais’s misguided approach to privatization and monetarism.” Luzhkov was referring to H.I.I.D. Chubais, who was delegated vast powers over the economy by Boris Yeltsin, was ousted in Yeltsin’s March purge, but in May he was given an immensely lucrative post as head of Unified Energy System, the country’s electricity monopoly. Some of the main actors with Harvard’s Russia project have yet to face a reckoning, but this may change if a current investigation by the U.S. government results in prosecutions.

The activities of H.I.I.D. in Russia provide some cautionary lessons on abuse of trust by supposedly disinterested foreign advisers, on U.S. arrogance and on the entire policy of support for a single Russian group of so-called reformers. The H.I.I.D. story is a familiar one in the ongoing saga of U.S. foreign policy disasters created by those said to be our “best and brightest.”

Through the late summer and fall of 1991, as the Soviet state fell apart, Harvard Professor Jeffrey Sachs and other Western economists participated in meetings at a dacha outside Moscow where young, pro-Yeltsin reformers planned Russia’s economic and political future. Sachs teamed up with Yegor Gaidar, Yeltsin’s first architect of economic reform, to promote a plan of “shock therapy” to swiftly eliminate most of the price controls and subsidies that had underpinned life for Soviet citizens for decades. Shock therapy produced more shock–not least, hyperinflation that hit 2,500 percent–than therapy. One result was the evaporation of much potential investment capital: the substantial savings of Russians. By November 1992, Gaidar was under attack for his failed policies and was soon pushed aside. When Gaidar came under seige, Sachs wrote a memo to one of Gaidar’s principal opponents, Ruslan Khasbulatov, Speaker of the Supreme Soviet, then the Russian parliament, offering advice and to help arrange Western aid and contacts in the U.S. Congress.

Enter Anatoly Chubais, a smooth, 42-year-old English-speaking would-be capitalist who became Yeltsin’s economic czar. Chubais, committed to “radical reform,” vowed to construct a market economy and sweep away the vestiges of Communism. The U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S.A.I.D.), without experience in the former Soviet Union, was readily persuaded to hand over the responsibility for reshaping the Russian economy to H.I.I.D., which was founded in 1974 to assist countries with social and economic reform.

H.I.I.D. had supporters high in the Administration. One was Lawrence Summers, himself a former Harvard economics professor, whom Clinton named Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs in 1993. Summers, now Deputy Treasury Secretary, had longstanding ties to the principals of Harvard’s project in Russia and its later project in Ukraine.

Summers hired a Harvard Ph.D., David Lipton (who had been vice president of Jeffrey D. Sachs and Associates, a consulting firm), to be Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary for Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. After Summers was promoted to Deputy Secretary, Lipton moved into Summers’s old job, assuming “broad responsibility” for all aspects of international economic policy development. Lipton co-wrote numerous papers with Sachs and served with him on consulting missions in Poland and Russia. “Jeff and David always came [to Russia] together,” said a Russian representative at the International Monetary Fund. “They were like an inseparable couple.” Sachs, who was named director of H.I.I.D. in 1995, lobbied for and received U.S.A.I.D. grants for the institute to work in Ukraine in 1996 and 1997.

Andrei Shleifer, a Russian-born émigré and already a tenured professor of economics at Harvard in his early 30s, became director of H.I.I.D.’s Russia project. Shleifer was also a protégé of Summers, with whom he received at least one foundation grant. Summers wrote a promotional blurb for Privatizing Russia (a 1995 book co-written by Shleifer and subsidized by H.I.I.D.) declaring that “the authors did remarkable things in Russia, and now they have written a remarkable book.”

Another Harvard player was a former World Bank consultant named Jonathan Hay, a Rhodes scholar who had attended Moscow’s Pushkin Institute for Russian Language. In 1991, while still at Harvard Law School, he had become a senior legal adviser to the G.K.I., the Russian state’s new privatization committee; the following year he was made H.I.I.D.’s general director in Moscow. The youthful Hay assumed vast powers over contractors, policies and program specifics; he not only controlled access to the Chubais circle but served as its mouthpiece.

H.I.I.D.’s first awards from U.S.A.I.D. for work in Russia came in 1992, during the Bush Administration. Over the next four years, with the endorsement of the Clinton Administration, the institute would be awarded $57.7 million–all but $17.4 million without competitive bidding. For example, in June 1994 Administration officials signed a waiver that enabled H.I.I.D. to receive $20 million for its Russian legal reform program. Approving such a large sum as a noncompetitive “amendment” to a much smaller award (the institute’s original 1992 award was $2.1 million) was highly unusual, as was the citation of “foreign policy” considerations as the reason for the waiver. Nonetheless, the waiver was endorsed by five U.S. government agencies, including the Treasury Department and the National Security Council, two of the leading agencies formulating U.S. aid policy toward Russia. In addition to the millions it received directly, H.I.I.D. helped steer and coordinate some $300 million in U.S.A.I.D. grants to other contractors, such as the Big Six accounting firms and the giant Burson-Marsteller P.R. firm.

A s Yeltsin’s Russian government took over Soviet assets in late 1991 and early 1992, several privatization schemes were floated. The one the Supreme Soviet passed in 1992 was structured to prevent corruption, but the program Chubais eventually carried out instead encouraged the accumulation of property in a few hands and opened the door to widespread corruption. It was so controversial that Chubais ultimately had to rely largely on Yeltsin’s presidential decrees, not parliamentary approval, for implementation. Many U.S. officials embraced this dictatorial modus operandi, and Jonathan Hay and his associates drafted many of the decrees. As U.S.A.I.D.’s Walter Coles, an early supporter of Chubais’s privatization program, put it, “If we needed a decree, Chubais didn’t have to go through the bureaucracy.”

With help from his H.I.I.D. advisers and other Westerners, Chubais and his cronies set up a network of aid-funded “private” organizations that enabled them to bypass legitimate government agencies and circumvent the new parliament of the Russian Federation, the Duma. Through this network, two of Chubais’s associates, Maxim Boycko (who co-wrote Privatizing Russia with Shleifer) and Dmitry Vasiliev, oversaw almost a third of a billion dollars in aid money and millions more in loans from international financial institutions.

Much of this largesse flowed through the Moscow-based Russian Privatization Center (R.P.C.). Founded in 1992 under the direction of Chubais, who was chairman of its board even while head of the G.K.I., and Boycko, who was C.E.O. for most of its existence, the R.P.C. was legally a private, nonprofit, nongovernmental organization. In fact, it was established by another Yeltsin decree and helped carry out government policy on inflation and other macroeconomic issues and also negotiated loans with international financial institutions. H.I.I.D. was a founder of the R.P.C., and Andrei Shleifer served on the board of directors. Its other members were recruited by Chubais, according to Ira Lieberman, a senior manager in the private-sector development department of the World Bank who helped design the R.P.C. With H.I.I.D.’s help, the R.P.C. received some $45 million from U.S.A.I.D. and millions from the European Union, individual European governments, Japan and other countries, as well as loans from the World Bank ($59 million) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development ($43 million), which must be repaid by the Russian people. One result of this funding was the enrichment, political and financial, of Chubais and his allies.

H.I.I.D. helped create several more aid-funded institutions. One was the Federal Commission on Securities, a rough equivalent of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.). It too was established by presidential decree, and it was run by Chubais protégé Dmitry Vasiliev. The commission had very limited enforcement powers and funding, but U.S.A.I.D. supplied the cash through two Harvard-created institutions run by Hay, Vasiliev and other members of the Harvard-Chubais coterie.

One of these was the Institute for Law-Based Economy, funded by both the World Bank and U.S.A.I.D. This institute, set up to help develop a legal and regulatory framework for markets, evolved to encompass drafting decrees for the Russian government; it got nearly $20 million from U.S.A.I.D. Last August, the Russian directors of I.L.B.E. were caught removing $500,000 worth of U.S. office equipment from the organization’s Moscow office; the equipment was returned only after weeks of U.S. pressure. When auditors from U.S.A.I.D.’s inspector general’s office sought records and documents regarding I.L.B.E. operations, the organization refused to turn them over.

The device of setting up private organizations backed by the power of the Yeltsin government and maintaining close ties to H.I.I.D. was a way of insuring deniability. Shleifer, Hay and other Harvard principals, all U.S. citizens, were “Russian” when convenient. Hay, for example, served alternately and sometimes simultaneously as aid contractor, manager of other contractors and representative of the Russian government. If Western donors were attacked for funding controversial privatization practices of the state, the donors could claim they were funding “private” organizations, even if these organizations were controlled or strongly influenced by key state officials. If the Chubais circle came under fire for misuse of funds, they could claim that Americans made the decisions. Foreign donors could insist that the Russians acted on their own.

Against the backdrop of Russia’s Klondike capitalism, which they were helping create and Chubais and his team were supposedly regulating, the H.I.I.D. advisers exploited their intimate ties with Chubais and the government and were allegedly able to conduct business activities for their own enrichment. According to sources close to the U.S. government’s investigation, Hay used his influence, as well as U.S.A.I.D.-financed resources, to help his girlfriend, Elizabeth Hebert, set up a mutual fund, Pallada Asset Management, in Russia. Pallada became the first mutual fund to be licensed by Vasiliev’s Federal Commission on Securities. Vasiliev approved Pallada ahead of Credit Suisse First Boston and Pioneer First Voucher, much larger and more established financial institutions.

After Pallada was set up, Hebert, Hay, Shleifer and Vasiliev looked for ways to continue their activities as aid funds dwindled. Using I.L.B.E. resources and funding, they established a private consulting firm with taxpayer money. One of the firm’s first clients was Shleifer’s wife, Nancy Zimmerman, who operated a Boston-based hedge fund that traded heavily in Russian bonds. According to Russian registration documents, Zimmerman’s company set up a Russian firm with Sergei Shishkin, the I.L.B.E. chief, as general director. Corporate documents on file in Moscow showed that the address and phone number of the company and the I.L.B.E. were the same.

Then there is the First Russian Specialized Depository, which holds the records and assets of mutual fund investors. This institution, funded by a World Bank loan, also worked to the benefit of Hay, Vasiliev, Hebert and another associate, Julia Zagachin. According to sources close to the U.S. government’s investigation, Zagachin, an American married to a Russian, was selected to run the depository even though she lacked the required capital. Ostensibly, there was to be total separation between the depository and any mutual fund using its services. But the selection of Zagachin defied this tenet of open markets: Pallada and the depository were run by people with ties to each other through H.I.I.D. Thus the very people who were supposed to be the trustees of the system not only undercut the aid program’s stated goal of building independent institutions but replicated the Soviet practice of skimming assets to benefit the nomenklatura.

Anne Williamson, a journalist who specializes in Soviet and Russian affairs, details these and other conflicts of interest between H.I.I.D.’s advisers and their supposed clients–the Russian people–in her forthcoming book, How America Built the New Russian Oligarchy. For example, in 1995, in Chubais-organized insider auctions of prime national properties, known as loans-for-shares, the Harvard Management Company (H.M.C.), which invests the university’s endowment, and billionaire speculator George Soros were the only foreign entities allowed to participate. H.M.C. and Soros became significant shareholders in Novolipetsk, Russia’s second-largest steel mill, and Sidanko Oil, whose reserves exceed those of Mobil. H.M.C. and Soros also invested in Russia’s high-yielding, I.M.F.-subsidized domestic bond market.

Even more dubious, according to Williamson, was Soros’s July 1997 purchase of 24 percent of Sviazinvest, the telecommunications giant, in partnership with Uneximbank’s Vladimir Potanin. It was later learned that shortly before this purchase Soros had tided over Yeltsin’s government with a backdoor loan of hundreds of millions of dollars while the government was awaiting proceeds of a Eurobond issue; the loan now appears to have been used by Uneximbank to purchase Norilsk Nickel in August 1997. According to Williamson, the U.S. assistance program in Russia was rife with such conflicts of interest involving H.I.I.D. advisers and their U.S.A.I.D.-funded Chubais allies, H.M.C. managers, favored Russian bankers, Soros and insider expatriates working in Russia’s nascent markets.

Despite exposure of this corruption in the Russian media (and, far more hesitantly, in the U.S. media), the H.I.I.D.-Chubais clique remained until recently the major instrument of U.S. economic aid policy to Russia. It even used the high-level Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, which helped orchestrate the cooperation of U.S.-Russian oil deals and the Mir space station. The commission’s now-defunct Capital Markets Forum was chaired on the Russian side by Chubais and Vasiliev, and on the U.S. side by S.E.C. chairman Arthur Levitt Jr. and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Andrei Shleifer was named special coordinator to all four of the Capital Markets Forum’s working subgroups. Hebert, Hay’s girlfriend, served on two of the subgroups, as did the C.E.O.s of Salomon Brothers, Merrill Lynch and other powerful Wall Street investment houses. When The Nation contacted the S.E.C. for information about Capital Markets, we were told to call Shleifer for comment. Shleifer, who is under investigation by U.S.A.I.D.’s inspector general for misuse of funds, declined to be interviewed for this article. A U.S. Treasury spokesman said Shleifer and Hebert were appointed to Capital Markets by the Chubais group–specifically, according to other sources, by Dmitry Vasiliev.

In fact, H.I.I.D. projects were never adequately monitored by U.S.A.I.D. In 1996, a General Accounting Office report described U.S.A.I.D.’s management and oversight of H.I.I.D. as “lax.” In early 1997, U.S.A.I.D.’s inspector general received incriminating documents about H.I.I.D.’s activities in Russia and began investigating. In May Shleifer and Hay lost their projects when the agency canceled most of the $14 million still earmarked for H.I.I.D., citing evidence that the two managers were engaged in activities for “private gain.” The men had allegedly used their positions to profit from investments in the Russian securities markets and other private enterprises. According to sources close to the U.S. investigation, while advising the Russian government on capital markets, for example, Hay and his father allegedly used inside information to invest in Russian government bonds. Hay and Shleifer may ultimately face criminal and/or civil prosecution. Shleifer remains a tenured professor at Harvard, and Hay continues to work with members of the Chubais clique in Russia. Sachs, who has stated he never invests in countries where he advises and who is not implicated in the current U.S. government investigation, remains head of H.I.I.D. After Yeltsin’s Cabinet shakeup in March, Chubais was moved to a new position of prominence. His role in Russia’s political-economic affairs had been tarnished by reports of personal enrichment. Two examples:

§ In February 1996, Chubais’s Foundation for the Protection of Private Property received a five-year, $2.9 million unsecured interest-free loan. According to the pro-Yeltsin, pro-reform Izvestia, Stolichny Bank, an institution that enjoys lines of credit from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World Bank, made the loan in return for a small percentage of the Sibneft oil company when it was sold at auction, and for later control of one of the state’s largest banks. Chubais defended himself by saying such practices were common in the West, but failed to provide any reasonable explanation for some $300,000 in 1996 income not accounted for by his government salary.

§ During Yeltsin’s 1996 presidential campaign, security officials apprehended two close associates of Chubais as they were walking out of a main government building with a box containing more than $500,000 in cash for Yeltsin’s campaign. According to tapes of a later meeting recorded by a member of one of Russia’s security services, Chubais and his cronies strategized about burying evidence of any illegal transaction, while publicly claiming that any allegations of chicanery were the work of political enemies. A protracted, lackadaisical investigation began but was eventually dropped–more evidence of Chubais’s remarkable resilience. He remained valuable to Yeltsin largely because of his perceived ability to deal with the West, where many still regard him as a symbol of Russian reform.

During the five years that the Chubais clique presided over Western economic aid and policy in Russia, they did enormous harm. By unconditionally backing Chubais and his associates, the Harvard operatives, their U.S. government patrons and Western donors may have reinforced the new post-Soviet oligarchical system. Shleifer acknowledged as much in Privatizing Russia, the book he wrote with Chubais crony Maxim Boycko, who with his patron would later be caught in another financial indiscretion involving taking a “veiled bribe” in the form of advances on a book on the history of Russian privatization. “Aid can change the political equilibrium,” they said, “by explicitly helping free-market reformers to defeat their opponents.”

Richard Morningstar, U.S. aid coordinator for the former Soviet Union, stands by this approach: “If we hadn’t been there to provide funding to Chubais, could we have won the battle to carry out privatization? Probably not. When you’re talking about a few hundred million dollars, you’re not going to change the country, but you can provide targeted assistance to help Chubais.” In early 1996, after he was temporarily removed from high office by Yeltsin because he represented unpopular economic policies, H.I.I.D. came to his rescue by placing him on its U.S.A.I.D.-funded payroll, a show of loyalty that former U.S.A.I.D. assistant administrator Thomas Dine says he supported. Western policy-makers like Morningstar and Dine have depicted Chubais as a selfless visionary battling reactionary forces. In the spring of 1997, Summers called him and his associates a “dream team.” With few exceptions, the U.S. mainstream media have promulgated this view.

United States policy toward Russia requires a full-scale Congressional investigation. The General Accounting Office did investigate H.I.I.D.’s Russian and Ukrainian projects in 1996, but the findings were largely suppressed by the agency’s timid management. The audit team concluded, for example, that the U.S. government exercised “favoritism” toward Harvard, but this conclusion and the supporting documentation were removed from the final report. Last fall Congress asked the G.A.O. to look into Eastern European aid programs and Shleifer’s role in the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission. Such questions need to be answered, but any serious inquiry must go beyond individual corruption and examine how U.S. policy, using tens of millions in taxpayer dollars, helped deform democracy and economic reform in Russia and helped create a fat-cat oligarchy run amok.
https://www.thenation.com/article/ha...oys-do-russia/

Quote:
Plus, there were at least verbal assurances from George H.W. Bush’s administration that the Soviet retreat from East Germany and Eastern Europe would not be exploited by NATO and that a new era of cooperation with the West could follow the break-up of the Soviet Union.

Instead, the United States dispatched financial “experts” – many from Harvard Business School – who arrived in Moscow with neoliberal plans for “shock therapy” to “privatize” Russia’s resources, which turned a handful of corrupt insiders into powerful billionaires, known as “oligarchs,” and the “Harvard Boys” into well-rewarded consultants.

But the result for the average Russian was horrific as the population experienced a drop in life expectancy unprecedented in a country not at war. While a Russian could expect to live to be almost 70 in the mid-1980s, that expectation had dropped to less than 65 by the mid-1990s.

The “Harvard Boys” were living the high-life with beautiful women, caviar and champagne in the lavish enclaves of Moscow – as the U.S.-favored President Boris Yeltsin drank himself into stupors – but there were reports of starvation in villages in the Russian heartland and organized crime murdered people on the street with near impunity.

Meanwhile, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush cast aside any restraint regarding Russia’s national pride and historic fears by expanding NATO across Eastern Europe, including the incorporation of former Soviet republics.

In the 1990s, the “triumphalist” neocons formulated a doctrine for permanent U.S. global dominance with their thinking reaching its most belligerent form during George W. Bush’s presidency, which asserted the virtually unlimited right for the United States to intervene militarily anywhere in the world regardless of international law and treaties.

How Despair Led to Putin

Without recognizing the desperation and despair of the Russian people during the Yeltsin era — and the soaring American arrogance in the 1990s — it is hard to comprehend the political rise and enduring popularity of Vladimir Putin, who became president after Yeltsin abruptly resigned on New Year’s Eve 1999. (In declining health, Yeltsin died on April 23, 2007).

Putin, a former KGB officer with a strong devotion to his native land, began to put Russia’s house back in order. Though he collaborated with some oligarchs, he reined in others by putting them in jail for corruption or forcing them into exile.

Putin cracked down on crime and terrorism, often employing harsh means to restore order, including smashing Islamist rebels seeking to take Chechnya out of the Russian Federation.

Gradually, Russia regained its economic footing and the condition of the average Russian improved. By 2012, Russian life expectancy had rebounded to more than 70 years. Putin also won praise from many Russians for reestablishing the country’s national pride and reasserting its position on the world stage.

Though a resurgent Russia created friction with the neocon designs for permanent U.S. world domination, Putin represented a side of Russian politics that favored cooperation with the West. He particularly hoped that he could work closely with President Barack Obama, who likewise indicated his desire to team up with Russia to make progress on thorny international issues.

In 2012, Obama was overheard on an open mike telling Putin’s close political ally, then-President Dmitri Medvedev, that “after my election, I have more flexibility,” suggesting greater cooperation with Russia. (Because of the Russian constitution barring someone from serving more than two consecutive terms as p
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/1...t=print-search

https://www.institutionalinvestor.co...rd-lost-russia

And lots more

https://www.google.com/search?client....0.irux5fVFyi4

Last edited by praxis; 31 Dec 2017 at 11:33 PM.
praxis is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Politics & World Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Ocean Zero by vBSkins.com | Customised by Antechinus