Re: Russian Geopolitical View.



vello wrote:

On Aug 17, 11:30 pm, Vladimir Makarenko <makar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
vello wrote:

On Aug 17, 7:38 am, Vladimir Makarenko <nospam@nospam> wrote:


A serious obstacle of course is that is a book in terms of length. Holy
smoke, 160 pages. Nowadays not many people are capable to read a book
even when it is just a collection of lengthy articles. Here you are
right, - an attention span for an average TV zombie shrunk down to
average time span between two commercials.

VM.

Well, Einstein put his "special relativity" on a few lists of
paper :-) But for futurologist work 160 pages in not too much. I look
at it briefly yesterday night. Nice work by me, just if to be critical
- anyone would write such a piece on basis of knowledge existing
today. Some "extraordinary" scenarios have made the thing more
readable - and maybe more serious, too, as life not too often takes
the way what seems most logic today. I was able to read US, Indochine,
EU and post-spviet parts, skipping more distant places for near
future. Karaganov, author of "near abroad concept", distances himself
from that topic (there was a notice, that "Soviet" part is completed
under another man), coz work shows "post-soviet world" is something
what is rapidly disappearing.

But basically correct thing, anyone interested in world affairs would
put this vision on paper. Sole clear analytic mistake was about hope
that leaving Iraq will demoralize US in way Vietnam war did. Vietnam
and (Russo-Afganistan, Korean war) were de facto wars between opposing
sides in bipolar world - that's why US got a serious hangover from
Vietnam case - they feel they lost to the "other side", not just
leaved some third world country without success.

About Europe, Karaganov sees key to success in moving towards unitary
state. Here I think he is wrong. By me, future of 20-30 years will see
traditional "free world" as almost one single marketplace with no big
difference, will one run his business from Detroit, Orleans, Ottawa,
Bradford, Copenhagen or Tallinn. It means private business will
overrun a lot of national borders still existing today.

Other point where I'm not on position of Karaganov, is overestimating
the role of "big players". Sure US could "terminate the fate of
Monaco" - but why they would be motivated to do so? By me world turns
more economical and less political, so "big players" will be not so
much big countries then big concentrations of bucks or euros (is it
good or bad is another topic).

About Latin America what I look just very briefly: interesting is hope
that Latin america turns anti-US. It may happen, sure, but to see
Chaves as a new Christ for Latin America is as childish as the same
hope with Castro. Hugo byus popularity with oil dollars other dictator
wannabees in Latin
america don't have - to get money other Latin countries had to build
up modern societies with good economy climate and taxation system.

From Baltic wiewpoint it was nice to see understanding that we are not
a part of "post soviet area" for Russia any more. It gives hope our
relations with Russia will improve.

Karaganov traveled a long way from utopist/antiutopist/doomsday
sayer/etc. in the end of 80-ties to some acceptable ,more or less
realistic, look at the world. He is not even more a toughest Russian
nationalist (what was always funny because judging by his last name he
is an Armenian of aristocratic roots).
Wannabe is the best patriot. think Stalin :-) But I don't remember him
as tough nationalist - if not to take as "tough" nationalism
understanding, that instead of USSR there is now Russia with his own
specific political interests.

I don't say he is a "wannabe" but probably in the end of 80-ties he
just couldn't make sense what is going on except he didn't like it very
much and saw no exit. Probably more precise might be to say that he was
"isolationist".


Maybe it's true and people (at
least some) with age becoming wiser.

Iraq story if far from to be over any time soon and consequences will be
from bad to worse. The problem is simple - nobody knows how to get out
of there. And everybody wants to leave yesterday. It is, apart from
heavy material burden, a very strong psychological stress, endless
inquiries "why they hate us so much?" and when things somewhere go
better - "a good news, - they do not hate us as much as they used to".
You may counter that Europe maybe hates Bush but not Americans, -
Americans are perfectionists, they do not care about those who do not
hate them, they are concerned about those who do. And this happened
right after triumph of 90-ties, when the US around the world was
perceived as A Force of Good that reach everywhere. Kinda a shocking
contrast to a depressive state of mind here today. Especially with quite
high probability that exit of Iraq will lead to all out genocide with
Americans to blame.

You misread my message this time - surely Iraq case will most probably
not be something US must be happy with - my critics was about
comparing it with Vietnam. It's worse then Somali some years ago but
nothing what would affect US self-esteem or international reputation
in some serious manner.

There cannot be exact repetition of Vietnam, world is different and the
US too. But whether internally or internationally the US government
standing deteriorated badly. Many politicians abroad use that to promote
their little agendas, some of them express glee, some are very
disturbed.


However putting your paragraphs #2 and #3 together it is very plausible
that the macro transformation which is happening today will mitigate the
consequences, I do agree with you that evolvong supra national economy
across the borders will make people much less sensitive to national
governments failures as the national governments role in well being of
individuals is tends to be decreasing. This change is global.

Sure. In this case it is interesting that Russia seems to be the sole
serious nation in the world talking about "National idea" novadays.

??? There was *some* talk of that kind some time ago and as
participants never came to consensus (what esle had to be expected from
a bunch of brain dead wannabes), nor really had any thoughts to sound
the topic was abandoned. I wonder where have you stumbled over that?


With respect to "big players" theory - Karaganov maybe on Forbes 100
list of most sharp political thinkers of the world but he is still a XX
cent. old man with all the dogmas stuffed in his pockets.

When Russians say "Latin America turning anti-US" what they really mean
is that Latin America is slowly turning itlesf from the US backyard into
more or less politically independent entity. For a Russian political ego
it is already a sweet treat. LA has its own interests and if it became
"friendly" to Russia and China it is mostly to urge the US to upgrade
their status: stop patronize them when the US like them and kick in the
crotch when it doesn't. E.g. Chile today is from any angle is a modest
but EU grade country: low violent crime, decent economy/income (~$12,000
for not adjusted for PPP, otherwise maybe ~$20,000), stable political
and independent judicial system. And the others want to become as such.

Chavez is not a dictator or anything like. You cannot compare him even
with Lukashenko. He did get elected fair and square by absolute majority
of population again and again. The reality of life there is very
different from that in Europe or the US so the rules of the game are
different too. Still tolerable: nobody ever accuses Chavez of
persecuting his political opponents. They blame him for little support
they have in the country, which is their fault. Sounds like Russia.

Exactly my point. Have you read political thinker Fareed Zakaria and
his The Future of freedom?

No, but I listened to his opinions quite a few times. He is not a rare
guest on TV. Well, he was mostly talking about degree of stupidity of
Iraq invasion, not so much of Arab world in general.

When I read his studies about why Arab
world is not developing (he finds easy oil money as main brake: it
gives elite the possibility to "bribe" the nation, let them avoid
painful but needed reforms.

Wait, only few of Arab countries have any serious income from oil money
to cover inefficient economy. Others like Tunisia or Jordan are not, so
this explanation doesn't work. Even in case of Iran: one needs too small
population and too big money to make it work.

In countries without "natural money",

"Natural" money is very tricky: blood diamonds provided luxury funds for
civil wars, nothing to the people of the region.
And what is exactly the difference between "natural" money made on
natural resources and "natural" money made on outsourcing and using
dirty cheap labor? After all everything comes to cost/profit ratio. Is a
pair of "Nikes" made for $3 and sold for $80 different from an ounce of
gold which cost $50 to extract and sold for $600?

only
way for elite is to build a state with fruitful business climate: rule
of law, clear playrules, as less corruption as possible, democracy) I
immediatelly find myself thinking about Russia. Fareed is not some new
Hegel but quite interesting to read.

That looks like picture perfect, however, one way of corruption is to
legitimize some level of it. Corruption could be minimized but it cannot
be eliminated. Isn't any privilege in economic exchange an act of
corruption? Is governmental subsidies to particular group of population
some from of corruption? Protectionism of internal markets? Tax breaks?
Etc.
EU countries had time, means and experience to muzzle the corruption,
when Russia is still in progress of trying to figure out how and what to
do.

VM.

Chavez is indeed two faced Yanus - one who implements sensible reforms:
investing heavily in education, building of national health system,
reforming political system up and away from recent "oligarch" version,
etc., and the other who continually, in a pub brawler manner, insults
the US. I guess he mostly does it for internal politics - culture of a
Macho Man is real in Latin America. But the US is not without fault of
taking imperial stances, though in a much subtle way: just yesterday NYT
bitched that Chavez is buying Russian AK and sniper rifles and teach
reservists to urban warfare. As interviewed expert concluded with an
accusing pitch: it can mean only one thing, the SOB Chavez is making
sure that invasion of Venezuela will not be a cake walk. How dares he?
And NYT reflects attitudes of the most liberal and sensible part of the
US establishment.

As to Baltics be taken out of "post Soviet" space - well, this report is
not some political agitprop, it is an attempted sober look, and as such
*must* operate on reality scale where Baltics *are* members of EU. And
as Russia, at least for now, regards a close alliance with EU as an
eventual goal it will ignore emotions like "I wish they wouldn't be
there".
How Germans call it? - Real Politik?

VM.
Realpolitik. Like Estonians germans like to tie words together.
I still have a deficite of time to go further with Karaganov's work.
hope I will find time in days to come.
.

Relevant Pages