Category: Russia

The US In Need of Perestroika?

Gorbachev’s 1987 perestroika signaled beginning of the end for the USSR. Perestroika means re-building in Russian; it primarily referred to re-structuring of the Soviet economy, although it did lead to significant political changes in the Soviet bloc. It collapsed, erasing one  of  our two superpowers from the world’s geopolitical map, making for a unipolar and then a multipolar world… and the rest is really poli sci 101.

Twenty-ones years later, Mr. Gorbachev is back proposing a new kind of perestroika: for the US.

America needs perestroika right now. I did a lecture in the US and said the country needs its own perestroika and I got a 10 minute standing ovation,” said the man whose own policies helped trigger the collapse of the Soviet Union. “

(President) Obama’s proposals will be bigger than perestroika. I want to wish success to Obama and his Cabinet, because the problems he has to deal with are not easy ones.

Of course, President Obama is not exactly leading a Communist nation with command economy, but he does need to change, maybe fundamentally, the way economics in the US functions.

Interestingly enough, Gorbachev challenged the communist behemoth and ended up making it capitalist; Barack Obama, president of possibly the most pro-capitalist nation in the world, is perceived as ‘socialist’ by his political foes. He was in fact accused of being a socialist during his campaign. Remember Joe the Plumber’s accusation of Obama being on the ‘slippery Socialist slope’ of trying to ‘spread the wealth’?

Whether it is called socialism, communism, or any other -ism, Obama’s plan to ‘spread the wealth around’ makes sense in this economy. The supposed wonders of free economy led to the worse economic downturn since the Great Depression. What’s worse is its impact on the world; the recession in the US caused a domino effect of national currencies worldwide tanking, trade stalling, consuption fallin, and a myriad other negative effects. At least the USSR’s socialism/communism and its ill economic consequences was limited to only a handful of countries.

As Mr. Gorbachev knows all too well, socialism has many problems. As President Obama is learning, capitalism has serious problems of its own. It seems that what they need is a perestroika of economic theory, not just economic policies.

Eurovision 2009: More Drama as Georgia Withdraws

I really like and respect Georgia. Despite my usual sarcasm showing in the past few post, I think it’s a great country with an impressive history. Its problem is its unfortunate geopolitical situation: It is very difficult to be a small neighbor of Russia these days. Russia wants it to be obedient (and share some of the territory), and another superpower wants to use it to put pressure on Russia. Having seen Ukraine deal with a similar predicament, I can’t help but feel sorry for it.

Georgia has participated in the Eurovision only twice before. So when Georgia pulled out of this year’s contest yesterday, I felt bad for it. But what is the deal with all the hypocrisy?

Here is what MSNBC quotes Georgia’s representative as saying:

“Our song … does not contain political statements and the public broadcaster is not going to change the text of the song and refuses to go to competition in Moscow,” the head of production at Georgia’s state broadcaster, First Channel, George Chanturia, told a news briefing.

Many countries in the past expressed and enforced their political views through using or banning popular music. National anthems are composed to sound grand and solemn to inspire patriotism. The Russian’s use of the old Soviet score for theirs was a definitive political choice. But politics and music intertwine more often than an average Russian hears the anthem: Presidential candidates everywhere enlist pop singers to campaign for them. Western Ukraine banned playing songs in Russian in public places a few summers ago (all other languages were fine). The Beatles were banned in the USSR at some point — as a propaganda tool of the “decaying capitalism.  I have seen North Koreans study Britney Spears CD’s as a way of learning about America’s culture.

There is nothing wrong when a band from a country that feels oppressed performs a song that claims they don’t want a president of the oppressing country. I mean, North Korea does it with George Bush. Wait, that’s a bad example. All similar ones I can think of right now were written by the Communist propaganda masters.

Anyway, there is also nothing wrong when that song gets distributed worldwide through the wonder that is YouTube. But it is somewhat strange when that song gets entered into a competition that is supposed to be non-political by nature, that will be held in the ‘oppressing country’s’ capital, — and when the official representatives claim it is clearly non-political and act all indignant.

If there were no rules in place that ban songs of political nature to be performed at Eurovision, I would not mind ‘We Don’t Wanna Put In being performed this year. Freedom of speech is a jus cogens to me. Truth be told, Eurovision is a very politicized events, and the way voting is structured allows countries to block against other countries etc.

Judging aside, from a political scientist viewpoint, I think that this song situation did not work in Georgia’s favor. Georgia knew what the rules were, it knew that everyone would hear ‘Putin,’ not ‘Put In’, it could probably predict the song would be banned by the Eurovision organizers. I would guess that it was looking for some sort of political martyr reputation, but instead, it came across as being petty. Georgia just needs a new political strategist.

Catwalks: The Russians Are Coming

“Cheap is the new black,” read a comic in this week’s New Yorker. People consume less, think of creative ways to recycle, rethink, or re-accessorize, and this spring may be ‘lost‘ for this season’s clothes. Yet the haute couture world is still showing itself off in Milan, Paris, and New York City. A friend linked me yesterday to this Newsvine article: apparently, it is Russian that is the new black. At least for Fall ’09-Winter ’10. This is how Newsvine describes one of the shows:

It was like some opening into a doorway of dreams in Russian-Ukrainian fairy tale fantasy dreams,” the first-row guest told reporters backstage.

A Russian-Ukrainian fairy tale? Sounds good to me.

Many a Russian woman who found herself choosing between furs or ugly, bulky, shapeless jackets for a Russian winter will appreciate the fashionable efforts of the designers to make something warm and Russia-inspired (that is, if she can still afford it). The usual array of Russian/Eastern European models made these collections made even more relevant in a cute way.

But now that the designers got their fashion inspirations right, they need to get their weather facts straight.

Citing Newsvine: “Kenzo sent out oversized felt coats and voluminous striped knits that were fit for a Siberian winter.”

Here is a photograph of Kenzo outfit  taken by style.com’s Marcio Madeira’s (btw, it is modeled by a Belorusian):

00240m

Siberia is warming up, but is this fit for a Russian winter? I don’t think so.

Russia: The Eurovision Drama Unfolds

In my last post, I blogged about Georgia’s tongue-in-cheek anti-Russian song for this year’s Eurovision. The Eurovision drama just got more like a Mexican soap opera: the Russians made their pick to represent Russia. Get this: it’s a Ukrainian (but a Russian citizen). Singing a song in both Russian and Ukrainian. It totally warms my heart, as I can actually understand the lyrics. But hey, Russia and Ukraine are in the state of a miniature Cold War, so that’s an achievement.

The song’s title is “Mamo,” which is how one addresses one’s mother in Ukrainian. It’s a regular sentimental song, but at least it’s not politics-laden. Now, that’s refreshing.

The best part of Russia’s choice is that the lyrics were written by an Estonian, and the music was composed by a Georgian.

Here is the song:

Here is a link to a YouTube video of what I think is a TV screen record, with the actual performance.

Although I can’t be bothered to look up the statistics (I am on the spring break, after all), I believe around 13% of Russians, myself included, are actually ethnic Ukrainians. A Ukrainian has as much of a right to represent Russia as a representative of any common ethnicity in Russia. As a Russian-Ukrainian, I am absolutely ecstatic (plus Eurovision falls on my birthday this year).

I was semi-expecting more political gestures at this year’s Eurovision, but this is actually a gesture of goodwill. Take that, Georgia.

Georgia’s Eurovision Song: We Don’t Wanna Put In. And We Don’t Wanna Putin.

Eurovision, the all-Europe song annual song contest, has always been somewhat politicized. While in the past, most post-contest arguments pertained to what nation voted for what candidate, recent developments indicate a new Cold War in Europe: that between Russia and some of it’s post-Soviet neighbors.

In 2007, Ukraine’s Verka Serduchka sang what s/he claimed to have been “Lasha Tumbai” (a meaningless combination of sounds, really), but everyone heard “Russia, Goodbye.”

In 2008, Russia responded with Dima Bilan, who sang alongside an Olympic golden medalist Yevgeniy Plyushchenko to the accompanying Hungarian violist Edvin Marton. Dima Bilan became the first Russian to have won the Eurovision (Ukraine has two victories under her belt).

As the preparations for the 2009 contest are on the way, things are getting political. While most countries have not held the qualifying finals for their participants, Georgia announced its candidate, the band Stephane&3G that was specifically tailored to enter Eurovision. The country has only been participating in the Eurovision since 2007. Here are some of the lyrics:

We don’t wanna put in

The negative move

It’s killin’ the groove

There is a really awesome YouTube video of this song:


It certainly has a Eurovision winner potential: it is catchy, clearly inspired by American pop bands, and it has three girls with an exotic accent in tight PVC tops and mini-shorts. And it mentions drinking moonshine. That, along with the song’s message, will probably guarantee it many votes from the amused Western Europe and Russia-hating Eastern European countries.

Ironically, this year’s Eurovision will be held in Moscow (Russia’s Dima Bilan won last year), so “We Don’t Wanna Put In” will sound even more provocative. If the Eurovision organizing committee does allow this song to be performed (there were questions raised as to its appropriateness), I wonder what the Kremlin’s reaction will be.

I can see why the Georgians are so tongue-in-cheek regarding their behemoth neighbor, but that’s a petty way to deliver a protest, isn’t it? Georgia, if you are still mad over Abkhazia and Ossetia, go to a court of law, not the performance stage.

Russia’s First Channel Runs Anti-Alcohol Ads

Average life expectancy for a Russian male is under 60 years. Russian women are expected to live above 73. Many doctors claim that this discrepancy is attributed to high levels of alcohol consumption among men. Russians are believed to consume around 15 liters of pure alcohol (think 4 gallons of grain alcohol) per year.

Ex-President Putin launched several society-friendly campaigns during his presidency: pro-natal policies, education loans etc. President Medvedev is taking over with a new initiative: an anti-alcohol campaign. Russia’s First Channel (probably the most-watched channel in the country) has been showing very graphic ads several times a day. Each one is names after a body part that is most affected by elevated alcohol consumption, such as brain and heart.

Here’s an approximate transcript of the brain one:

When alcohol enters your bloodstream, the erythrocytes coalesce. Blood clots that completely block your capillaries begin to form in your blood. Capillaries swell and explode.

When your consume 100g of vodka, around 8,000 brain cells die. After each drinking party over 10,000 dead brain cells leave your body with urine. Take care of yourself!

The accompanying video is so graphic that it makes your brain cells die right away, without any alcohol intake. I am not posting any screen shots since they can be too disturbing to some readers. But check for yourself on YouTube, and those brave enough to watch the other ads in the series can do it here.

Russia is indeed in dire need of an anti-alcohol campaign. The legal drinking age is 18, but it is rarely, if ever, enforced (I once observed a teenager who looked like he was 14 buy a bottle of vodka. The cashier was reluctant to sell to it to him, to which he replied it was for his dad. Once he left the store, he took out his sell phone to report that he was coming with the vodka to this friends). ‘Beer alcoholism’ is a rising phenomenon amongst teenagers and young men. Widespread advertising of beer and a belief that beer is ‘not really alcohol’ led to it becoming almost as commonplace as, say, coke is in the US. This problem is so deeply-rooted that the law banning drinking alcohol on the streets that was passed in 2004 was one of the very few Putin-approved laws that were never taken seriously.

The last anti-alcohol campaign in Russia, an all-out war heralded by Gorbachev in 1985-1988, failed miserably. Many wonderful vineyards were shut down and many ridiculous mottoes were coined in the name of a healthy nation. People instead resorted to making moonshine and trading it at the black market.  This campaign has the potential to be much more successful than any prohibition can be.

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia and His TV Show

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow's Enthroning
Patriarch Kirill of Moscow's Enthroning

In a little under two decades, Russia went from officially avoiding religion to having a religious leader who has his own TV show.

Kirill, Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, was recently enthroned as the 16th Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia.

He was dubbed the most likely successor of the late Patriarch Aleksiy II following his death. He maintained a high-visibility profile for several decades, being in charge of the Church’s Department of External Relations (Church-speak for PR).

His installation received a lot of attention, even though most mass media as always managed to present Orthodox Christianity as the most important religion in Russia. (Russia actually has the largest Muslim population in Europe, but no one pays attention to that fact, given that the state leaders are all Orthodox. Oh, and there are a lot of other religions represented in Russia, but I am guessing they are too far removed from Moscow and St. Petersburg to be even considered).

The new patriarch is an alleged KGB agent (well, who isn’t), a businessman (he had a privilege of duty-free import of cigarettes in Russia in the 1990’s), and a show man. Since 1994, he has hosted the weekly Saturday morning show entitled “The Pastor’s Word.” He recently announced he planned on keeping it. Can you think of any other religious leaders who have one of their own? I can’t.

Lost in Translation: Putin v. Michael Dell

Nikita Khrushchev was infamous for driving his interpreters crazy with impromptu emotional Russian idioms that were impossible to translate. At least his interpreters had an excuse: they had to study English behind the iron curtain, without real practice with native speakers. These days there are so many opportunities for language study and practice that aspiring high-level political simultaneous translators should make use of them. It looks like that would be too logical for Russia.

A few Putin-related things happened at Davos: his surprisingly amicable opening speech (very different from the infamous Munich one) and what all the American/Western newspapers gladly labeled a “huge fight” with Michael Dell.

Well, it’s time to practice your Russian, comrades.

Dell asks the very obviously annoyed Putin: “How can we as an IT sector help you broaden the economy as you move out of the crisis and take advantage of that broad scientific talent you have?”

I am not defending Putin, but if I were a leading woman of the powerful nation who could easily leave Europe freezing and attack/defend myself from a neighboring country, I would be annoyed, too, it a chairperson of the computer company not well-known in my country offered me what sounded like his help.

(I am aware that Dell is the second-largest computer maker in the world. I also believe that the IT has a huge potential to broaden any country’s economy. Technology in general has a great misunderestimated potential in politics, economics etc. Russia also needs some IT improvements. I also don’t know what kind of translation Putin heard from his interpreter, but — see the explanation below — presumably not an excellent one. BUT for Michael Dell to ask a question like that to a leader of the country where any big company is viewed as potential government property has a high explosive potential.)

The simultaneous translation has Putin say this: “We don’t need help. We are not invalids… We don’t have a limited mental capacity.”

He actually said this: “You know, the trick is that you don’t need to help us. We are not disabled. Those who really need help are the poor, one needs to help people who help limited capabilities, one needs to help the retired, one needs to help the developing countries…”

The transcript is published here. For the Russian speakers, here is the same thing in Russian:

“Вы знаете – фокус заключается в том, что нам не нужно помогать. Мы не инвалиды. Реально нужно помогать бедным, нужно помогать людям с ограниченными возможностями, нужно помогать пенсионерам, нужно помогать развивающимся странам…”

This YouTube video has it starting at 1:24. The Russian that is heard in the background sounds like precisely what was published.

The main message of his response was that Russia needs not help, but a full-scale partnership. I believe that I heard from many a Yale professor that one of the main reasons of Russia’s aggressive behavior is that for too many post-Soviet years it was looked down at. I agree. Russia needs her respect. And better translators, apparently.

Russia, Ukraine, Natural Gas, and Thomas Schelling

The Russia-Ukraine natural gas conflict reminds me of a classic Thomas Schelling situation: the dynamite truck dilemma. There are two dynamite trucks moving towards each other on a narrow road. If they keep moving and clash, the drivers will blow themselves up. So they have to stop and to make a decision who will yield to whom. That way, they won’t be late with their deliveries — and they will both make out of this situation alive. But both drivers have a previous history of conflicts with each other. Let’s say they belong to two different ethnic groups who hate each other, so neither is going to accommodate the other one’s needs. Additionally, the driver who yields will ‘lose face’ and be disgraced forever with his/her people, and, say, lose a bonus from their company.

Schelling proposes a solution: to get a third arty to come in and act as an arbiter. A ‘bystander’ is interested in helping the drivers solve the situation — mostly to save her own life from a dynamite explosion (let’s say this bystander can’t run or walk away). The drivers are somewhat rational; they don’t want to los their lives, so they want some solution. It’s just that they can’t reach one themselves.

Russia and Ukraine are the ‘truck drivers.’ Europe is the bystander aka the ‘third party.’ Of course, Europe is not going to die in a gas explosion, but not getting enough natural gas is pretty bad for it.

As both a Russian and a Ukrainian, I have no desire to judge which country is right or wrong. I have been watching the situation, and it has been pretty predictable so far. I expected President Sarkozy to be negotiating the situation, but he seems to have found himself a more exciting conflict to work on. Well, whoever acts as that ‘bystander,’ I hope that Schelling was right about a dynamite truck situation being totally solvable.

NB: Check out Steve LeVine’s wonderful explanation of the problem.

A Russian Definition of Feminism?

A friend linked me to the poll featured in the online version of the Russian Cosmopolitan.

The question reads: “Who is a feminist?” Check out the only potential answers:

-A woman who doesn’t wear bras.

-A woman who has bad luck with men

-A lesbian

-Condoleezza Rice

That’s deep, isn’t it? If you weren’t upset enough, here is more:
— The other polls that website features appear to be more or less serious, so it was not a New Year-induced hangover joke.

— The magazine’s primary audience is women, so it was not a poll published by some chauvinist publication, which would have at least made more sense. It was apparently published under the “a poll for him” category, but I have strong feeling it was the women who voted, since they are the ones who visit the site.

NB: Please don’t think that Condoleezza Rice is listed there as a role model. Russian mass media enjoy mocking her personal life, so no, she is not perceived as a successful woman.

To get to see what the other readers thought, I had to vote. To have to pick one of these extremely intelligent option was embarrassing enough, but the results made me go look in the family tree for some proof I was not a Russian.

Guess what? Almost five thousand readers voted. And here is what they picked:
-A woman who doesn’t wear bras — 8.7%

-A woman who has bad luck with men — 58.49%

-A lesbian — 6.81%

-Condoleezza Rice — 26.01%.

So to be a feminist, you have to be single. Or wait, it must be the other way around. You get dumped, get bitter, and get a feminism handbook.

I guess readers of the Russian Cosmo would rather be married with one in four chances of being domestically abused by their husbands (Amnesty International figures from here) than be a secretary of state.