← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hilaire Belloc
Thread ID: 9101 | Posts: 18 | Started: 2003-08-17
2003-08-17 03:59 | User Profile
** [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3150765.stm]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3150765.stm[/url]
[u]Russia in crisis: Five years on[/u]
**Five years ago, on the way to my office in Moscow, I was mildly inconvenienced by an apparently malfunctioning bank cash machine. **
Thousands of Russians, it turned out, were suffering the same problem, and over the following days and weeks many more had their savings frozen, mislaid or just pinched.
Russia's decision, on 17 August 1998, to devalue the rouble and default on tens of billions of dollars of debt pitched the country into economic and political turmoil.
But five years later, maybe the term "mild inconvenience" is a more appropriate description.
Rouble trouble
It didn't seem like that at the time.
During the sweaty summer of 1998, as investors scrambled to pull their money out, interest rates rose to 250%, and the IMF camped permanently in the Kremlin, it was obvious that something nasty was going to happen.
But the sheer speed of Russia's financial meltdown was still breathtaking.
Most banks just didn't bother opening their doors again after 16 August.
The rouble, which had been rock-steady at around six to the dollar for months, instantly dropped to 20, and kept heading south.
Within days, as stocks of imported goods began to run low, many shops simply ran out.
The Russian media, never willing to underplay a story, started talking excitedly of famine.
Who's hurting?
In the event, however, it was hard to find much evidence of suffering.
Westerners with salaries fixed in dollars became four times richer overnight.
The busiest man in Moscow Most well-off Russians, their savings long ago converted into dollars or deutschmarks, were able to watch the rouble slide with equanimity.
For poor Russians, meanwhile, who never handle dollars, travel abroad, or buy imported goods, the situation was equally irrelevant.
Even the emerging middle classes - the source, it is always said, of Russia's eventual prosperity - were always wary of banks and careful with their little cash.
Many were mightily put out, but few ultimately ended up out of pocket.
Tetchy times
The first days' panic quickly subsided into a situation universally known as "crisis", but with little of the sense of urgency the term implies.
The period certainly took its toll on nerves: just as Russians had learned to stop worrying about survival, they were pitched back into something like the wearying atmosphere of the early 1990s.
Shops restocked quickly enough, but the simplest purchase took far more mental effort.
Much time and trouble was wasted establishing that, for example, a booth on Petrovka was offering the town's best rouble rate, or that a bank on the Arbat could process credit-card transactions.
Like many, I often had to travel to Estonia, Germany or the UK, bringing back bags bulging with dollar bills to help keep my office going.
The collective effect of these nuisances was immeasurable.
But a tetchy population helped produce a period of political instability, with an ever-changing government and renewed snarling from extremists on the right and left.
Competitive edge
The economy, meanwhile, boomed.
Output shrank - although not by much - in 1998 itself, but devaluation helped pave the way for a period of extraordinary economic resurgence.
A wobbly president for a wobbly country Government finances, the curse of the pre-August economy, were cleared up at stroke, albeit a somewhat draconian one.
And helped by a sustained rise in petroleum and other commodity prices, Russia's important oil and metals exporters were suddenly awash with cash.
Better still, modest Russian manufacturers, many of which had been frozen out by foreign competition, at last found a ready market for their products.
Foreign investors, whose memories are notoriously short, were quickly back in the Russian market, and some have even started putting money into real factories and offices, rather than more ephemeral shares and bonds.
Russia reborn
Could it happen again?
In some ways, the Russia of 2003 is a very different country.
In Vladimir Putin, it has a stable, nationalist, authoritarian president - the near-opposite of the hapless, erratic Boris Yeltsin.
The state budget is in tolerable shape, and the government bond market - turned into a high-yielding pyramid scheme during the fiscal scramble of mid-1998 - is now a sober affair.
Russian shoppers, who used to go wild for imported goods, even staples such as milk, are now happy to buy mainly Russian-made products.
The rouble quickly found its level, around 30 in the dollar, and has remained stable for years now.
Echoes of 1998
But just because this is not 1998 does not mean that Russia won't crash.
The promised clear-out of bad banks has been a largely cosmetic exercise: in 1998, Russia had 1,500 banks, most of them little more than brass plates - now, it still has over 1,300.
Empty shelves are the least of Russia's worries An awful lot of excitable foreign money is again washing around in the Russian system, producing a near-quadrupling in the stock market since the beginning of 2001.
And given the lack of material reforms under Mr Putin, it is hard not to believe that heady economic growth is being fuelled solely by oil prices, which have long been about three times higher than the $10-per-barrel trough hit in 1998.
Despite continual talk to the contrary, Russia has made no effort to diversify its economy away from the fairly brainless business of digging resources out of the ground and selling them abroad.
Unprocessed petroleum and metals account for more than half of all exports, the same proportion as in 1998.
If commodity prices take a serious tumble, they could take the Russian economy down, too.
The bigger they are...
And it would matter a lot more this time.
In 1998, Russia was politically important, but economically negligible.
International banks had a few hundred million dollars - chump change to them - in worthless Russian bonds, but the rest of the world business community had little at stake.
Now, foreign firms have piled into Russia - and Russian firms have for the first time started to look abroad, buying assets and selling their products to the outside world.
Five years ago, Russia was big and scary; now, it is a respected and active fixture in global diplomacy.
If Russia went wrong now, it would be more than a mild inconvenience. **
2003-08-29 16:44 | User Profile
Business Week had a pretty good thing on Russia recently.
Of course, the big story that NOBODY will talk about is that Putin's success had an awful lot to do with kicking the Jewish Oligarchs out of the country. The real struggle has been with them, and he's been taking them out one after the other.
Putin has been a great president thus far. He enacted a rational Tax Code (top individual tax rate of 13%, lowest in Europe), exiled the Jewish Oligarchs Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Smolensky and maybe now even Abramovich and Khodorkovsky.
Vsyo putyom, as they say in Russian. It's all going according to plan.
Russia is on its way up. They're even talking about outlawing some abortions. One of the political parties has ads up showing pregnant Russian women and the caption "love, so that we remain on Earth.
Walter
2003-08-29 16:58 | User Profile
Another thing Yannis is that Putin is running the economy "Russian" style, not "Western"(ie American) style. One reason why the economy went to :dung: in Russia during the 1990's was because of Yelstin's foolish way of adopting American like policies to the economy. Yet common sense constantly dictates that Russia does not equal America; never did, never will(sorry to disapoint those "global village" idiots and Westernizers).
What's funny is that this further proves the theories of the 19th century Slavophiles, that indeed Russia is not like the West, Russia is different from the West, Russia(including its economy) should be run on Russian principles rather than on Western principles. But then again, as I stated before, THAT'S COMMON SENSE!
Globalization(ie Americanization) simply defies common sense and logic, yet people still believe in its :dung: . Makes you wonder what they've been smoking :sm: = :sleep:
2003-08-29 18:03 | User Profile
Funny how much simpler everything is when looking back and creating "what if" scenarios. What if Russians:
were more "anti-semitic", had more babies, stuck together better, were more "intolerant and hateful", relied on themselves more than on advice of strangers, etc. etc.
Are all the modern "virtues" exactly opposite of what is good for "your people"?
2003-08-29 23:49 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Aug 29 2003, 16:14 * ** > Putin has been a great president thus far.*
I agree, which is why I will be voting for him in 2004, and not W. **
Are you appling for Russian citizenship WM?
** Now that all us Slavophiles are in one place,**
Well Prodigal Son is not here.
2003-08-30 01:24 | User Profile
"700 club" for Russia? It's a shame that Americans are bombarded with charity requests for some "chernozhopy" children in Latin America slums or Africa jungle, while the money can be much better spent on projects helping people who share your history and culture, let alone look like you. And it's not even money that much that are needed, as the help in filling the post-communist vacuum in the heads, battle for the minds so to speak.
I'll contribute a link to Bulgakov's "The Heart of a Dog" hilarious satire of the Soviet Union in 1920s: [url=http://lib.ru/BULGAKOW/dogheart_engl.txt]http://lib.ru/BULGAKOW/dogheart_engl.txt[/url], where zhid kommissars are personified by Shvonder. There was even a brilliant movie made in the 80s, where the obnoxious kommissar Shvonder was appropriately played by a zhid actor Roman Kartsev.
2003-08-30 01:37 | User Profile
"700 club" for Russia? It's a shame that Americans are bombarded with charity requests for some "chernozhopy" children in Latin America slums or Africa jungle, while the money can be much better spent on projects helping people who share your history and culture, let alone looks like you. And it's not even money that much that are needed, as the help in filling the post-communist vaccuum in the heads, battle for the minds so to speak.
You are so right fellow Russkii! ;)
In fact most of the money that goes to Russia from the 700 Club is to help poor old zhids emigrate to Israel. I still remembers those informercials talking about how bad Jews were treated in Russia and that Jews must flee to Israel cause they're starving in Russia(yeah and like your average Slav isn't either?). Then to top it off was the stupid theme song "We are leaving Mother Russia".
Yolkie Palki! :angry:
2003-08-30 03:15 | User Profile
Hey Russkiis:
Where do think Russia will end up?
In the American camp?
In the EU camp?
In the Asian camp?
And why?
And whoever it was that was praising Putin for ejecting the oligarchs, not so fast!
See my thread about soccer Jews in London.
We don't want them either.
2003-08-30 05:23 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Dan Dare@Aug 29 2003, 21:15 * ** Hey Russkiis:
Where do think Russia will end up?
**
For my basic views on Russia's geo-political future read this article from Pravda [url=http://english.pravda.ru/letters/2002/06/04/29646_.html]http://english.pravda.ru/letters/2002/06/0.../04/29646_.html[/url]
** In the American camp?**
Nope. America will only accept a weak Russia. If relations between America and Russia are to improve, the average American joe has to get rid of their stereotypes about Russians. Seriously, is there ever a time on American tv where Russians are dipicted as nothing more than incompentant drunks? I think not.
So Russia should keep America at arms length.
** In the EU camp?**
Nope. Russia by itself has enough economic potential to rival the EU. The EU doesn't even want Russia in because they know Russia would dominate it. Similar reason why Russia will not join NATO, no need plus no desire on the other side(cause Russia too would dominate the alliance).
[url=http://oag.ru/views/recognize.html]Europe will recognize only a Russia which rejects herself[/url]
I've always believed that there can be friendler relations between Russia and the West, but never a long-term alliance or incorporation of Russia into the West. Russia is simply too different and comes from a different heritage. This is one area I believe Pat Buchanan is wrong, who believes that Russia's place is with the West. No it is not, we are totally different civilization.
** In the Asian camp?**
I believe Asia maybe a source for geo-political support, but Russia must be cautious in this area as well. I believe Russia should maintain strong ties with Europe, but with a nationalist Europe.
** I foresee the re-establishment of a mighty Russia -- one yet stronger and more powerful [than she is today]. Remember that it is upon the bones of martyrs just such as these that a new Rus' will be erected, as on a firm foundation; and yet, she will be fashioned after the old model and firm in her faith in Christ [our] God, and in the Holy Trinity! And the Church will be as one, in accordance with the testament of Prince St. Vladimir! The Russian people have ceased to understand just what Rus' is: she is the foot-stool of the Lord's Throne! The Russian must realize this and thank God for the fact that he is a Russian.
St. Ioann of Kronstadt**
2003-08-30 06:09 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Dan Dare@Aug 30 2003, 03:15 * ** Hey Russkiis:
Where do think Russia will end up?
In the American camp?
In the EU camp?
In the Asian camp?
And why?
And whoever it was that was praising Putin for ejecting the oligarchs, not so fast!
See my thread about soccer Jews in London.
We don't want them either. **
Tee hee.
Yeah, it's quite a sight seeing Abramovich flying from exile in Chukotka to purchase the Chelsea football club.
I suspect that he knows he's on the way out, despite being the governor of the most remote place on Earth.
Walter
2003-08-30 06:29 | User Profile
For my basic views on Russia's geo-political future read this article from Pravda
Well I saw nothing to quibble about there.
But I have to question your stance on Russian particularism.
Surely you will have to agree that the Lebensraum sorry that should have read the real estate is too expansive, the human resources too valuable, and the natural resources too abundant for covetous eyes not to wander eastwardly?
There are or very soon will be too few Ivans to hold the fort so you are going to have to throw your lot in with the Yanks, the Krauts or the Chinks, Which is it to be?
May I respectfully refer to Mackinder's paper ââ¬ÅThe Geographical Pivot of History,ââ¬Â which he delivered to the Royal Geographical Society on January 25, 1904. Mackinder suggested that either a Russo-German alliance or a Sino-Japanese empire (which conquered Russian territory) could contend for world hegemony.
In the longer run I see nothing that counters Mackinder's hypothesis.
You chaps are in the swing seat. Which is it to be? East or West? Paddling solo is not an option, I would suggest.
2003-08-30 07:02 | User Profile
** There are or very soon will be too few Ivans to hold the fort so you are going to have to throw your lot in with the Yanks, the Krauts or the Chinks, Which is it to be?**
Well concerning the population problem, I can only say that overall situation must improve if the this problem is to be addressed. The population of Germany was on the decline during the Weimar years yet it birthrates rosed once Hitler came to power.
Russia has gone through population problems, it will probally bypass this one. Read about the Time of Troubles.
** May I respectfully refer to Mackinder's paper ââ¬ÅThe Geographical Pivot of History,ââ¬Â which he delivered to the Royal Geographical Society on January 25, 1904. Mackinder suggested that either a Russo-German alliance or a Sino-Japanese empire (which conquered Russian territory) could contend for world hegemony.
In the longer run I see nothing that counters Mackinder's hypothesis.
You chaps are in the swing seat. Which is it to be? East or West? Paddling solo is not an option, I would suggest. **
Yes I'm aware of Mackinder's theories, although your assertions are somewhat simplistic. First off, I like to remind you that it was not China/Japan that conquered Russia but the Mongols. Same race, but both the Chinese and Japanese refered to them as savages and barbarians.
China may look impressive, but it is not(except maybe economically). It has few natural defenses thus was the need for the Great Wall. It's surronded by potential enemies on all fronts: It has Russia to the north, India(whose population is set outgrow China's) to the southwest, USA/Japan to the East, Vietnam to the South(which China got broiled down into a stalemate in the 1980's), and Islamic Fundelmentalism to the North West(China is extremely concerned about this force spilling over into China's muslim population).
So China cannot really engage in an aggressive foreign policy without risk of exposing herself to military danger. China historically has always been a isolationist nation(they always refer themselves as "all under heaven" in Ancient times), most wars China fought were either internal civil wars or against invadors. Rarely did Chinese troops invade other countries(although they did invade Mongolia to stop nomadic raids but that hardly stopped them).
** "On Paper, China looks powerful and dynamic even today, less than 25 years after Deng Xiaoping began to open his country to the outside world. In reality, the Middle Kingdom, as it once called itself, is a paper dragon. Peer beneath the surface, and there is a weak China, one that is in long-term decline and even on the verge of collaspe."
"The Coming Collaspe of China" Gordon G. Chang**
As to East or West. Well geo-politics is not always(if ever) that simple. Many have argued and debated whether Russia is a Western or Eastern nation, they cannot answer because Russia is really neither. In some ways Russia is different from both, in some ways it's a combination of the two. She is neither East nor West but is also East and West together. As August von Haxthausen wrote in his 1847 work [url=http://www.cossackweb.com/cossacks/missia.htm#kazaki]"Studies On The Interior Of Russia"[/url]
**Culturally Russia leans toward Europe. The Russians are a European people and stand at the head of the powerful Slavic race which inhabits more than one-third of Europe. Russia is anchored in the great Christian family of European nations, which is the leader of the human race. Russia received civilization and political forms from the rest of Europe. But with respect to Europe she has no important economic interests to represent; she exports only her raw materials to the European market; her industry cannot compete with that of western Europe. **
As I said before, Asia can be a major source for geo-political support of Russia's policies. Putin has often called for a Russian-Indian-Chinese Axis to stand up against NATO/USA. This is also largely supported by the Eurasianist intellectual Alexander Dugin. Russia indeed has large interests in Asia. As August von Haxthausen further writes;
Having indicated how Russia's cultural interests incline primarily toward Europe, we should now like to explain in what way her material interests are directed for the most part toward Asia. Russia's position on the border between Europe and Asia ought to be viewed as a true mission of Providence assigning her the task of first transmitting European culture to Asia, and subsequently perhaps Christianity. But this mission will not be accomplished by conquest, but by way of humanity, fellowship, and trade. More and more the empire's center of gravity is inclining toward the east and southeast. The colossal fair at Nizhnii Novgorod may soon become more important than all her commercial dealings with Europe .
And he continues
**Russia will be wary of conquering territory in Asia. She now has safe frontiers and territories inhabited by her own people. Should she conquer regions by force which would constitute an uncertain possession, subject to attack and retainable only by a military presence and at a considerable expense? Russia is interested in seeing that peace prevails in Asia, that the Asian empires prosper and become somewhat civilized, and that they adopt European customs, since Russia's industry and trade will thrive as a result. In comparing the present condition of the Asian empires Turkey, Persia, China, Bukhara, and Tibet - with that of a hundred years ago, one cannot fail to recognize that their political and social contacts with Europe are more extensive than they were in the past. France contribute somewhat to this development, England played a greater role, and Russia can claim the most credit. In any case, Russia is doing the most to support and preserve the existing states of Asia. **
So East or West is a very complicated question for Russia. It depends on which suits us and which one seems to respect our interests more. For now, I see that China is respecting our foreign policy objectives more than our USA/NATO and the new Chinese president made his first foreign visit to Russia, which many believe was significant geopolitically speaking. So for now I say move cautiously more towards the East.
2003-08-30 13:59 | User Profile
**In fact most of the money that goes to Russia from the 700 Club is to help poor old zhids emigrate to Israel. I still remembers those informercials talking about how bad Jews were treated in Russia and that Jews must flee to Israel cause they're starving in Russia(yeah and like your average Slav isn't either?). Then to top it off was the stupid theme song "We are leaving Mother Russia".
Yolkie Palki! **
Not so fast my Russian friend. I saw the commercial and seriously thought of sending a contribution. It was one of the few things that Pat Robertson has ever done right. Yes, the Russophobic nature of the commercial was corny and histronic, but what could be a more noble cause than getting Genrikh Yagoda's tribal kin out of Russia?
Now if only someone would establish a similar charity for giving the Jews the heave-ho in America.
2003-08-30 17:09 | User Profile
Dan Dare,
projections or extrapolations are notoriously unreliable. Both the US and Western Europe have their own problems with immigration and suicidal political correctness. They are hardly compatible with populations of Eastern Europe, less corrupted by that. I just hope Russians have had a good lesson in the 90s about worshipping all things Western and are now less succeptable to black-and-white thinking and aren't that naive anymore.
If one is to look at history, commonality of cultures (relative or absolute) has never precluded wars or hostilities between nations. I don't believe our musings here have any effect on realpolitik games, until people with our convictions achieve some visibility and some power. And even then, there is no guarantee.
2003-08-30 17:11 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Oklahomaman@Aug 30 2003, 06:59 * ** Not so fast my Russian friend. I saw the commercial and seriously thought of sending a contribution. It was one of the few things that Pat Robertson has ever done right. Yes, the Russophobic nature of the commercial was corny and histronic, but what could be a more noble cause than getting Genrikh Yagoda's tribal kin out of Russia?
Now if only someone would establish a similar charity for giving the Jews the heave-ho in America. **
The question of reducing the number of Yagoda and Trotsky co-tribalists aside, the global hive has become stronger as a result of the Odessa-Brighton Beach transfer.
2003-08-30 17:31 | User Profile
I also want to add this, now that the (white) residents of Western countries, and Russia to some degree too, are no longer represented by their governments, I believe more in whites going tribal and cooperating with other whites and people diplomacy more than waiting for some change from the governments. The strength must grow within, and THEN it will reflect in the change in politicians/governments. What it means, think locally and do your duty. There is no reason to despair, because the problems that whites are facing today are mostly the weakness of their convictions and spirit. That's much easier to overcome than what, say, zhids faced through the millennia.
2003-08-30 18:05 | User Profile
madrussian wrote:
**Both the US and Western Europe have their own problems with immigration and suicidal political correctness. They are hardly compatible with populations of Eastern Europe, less corrupted by that. **
But surely events have proven otherwise. Next year the Eastern European countries of Poland and the Baltic Republics, not to mention several other former Comecon members, are acceding to the EU. Most other non-Soviet members of the former Warsaw Pact are likely to follow suit in due course. Perhaps to be followed by the Ukraine.
I think you are incorrect in conflating the US and Western Europe. Their long-term strategic interests are diverging. The US is clearly demographically hosed and on the verge of implosion, as more states follow California's lead into a corrupt and bankrupt third-world style future. All the while, the elites are preoccupied with attempting to function as the world's policeman.
Europe, on the other hand, is not in thrall to foreign interests, and although seriously challenged, still has time to resolve its demographic issues. And providing Germany finally emerges from its current guilt-induced cringe, could come to provide an effective counterweight, politically and militarily.
Likewise NATO, perun. That organization has run its course and I am certain cannot constitute a threat in Russian strategic thinking. NATO is bound to wither away as the US will need to continue to deplete its military presence in Western Europe in order to free up resources for its real missions: (1) to prop up basket-case third world states in the name of the 'war on terror' (2) to implement Israel's foreign policy objectives and (3) to pacify an increasingly fractious homeland.
In the ensuing power vacuum, it seems certain that Russia will face a choice between a European (not Western) and an Asiatic future. Call it simplistic if you like, but given its economic abd demographic weakness I don't see how Russia can prevaricate too long.
My prediction: Russia will apply for EU membership before 2010.
2003-08-30 18:29 | User Profile
Dan Dare,
It does sound good "on paper". Will the new countries just add diversity that the Germans and French are now enjoying? Certainly, when you have so many Turks, Albanians and Bosnians in Germany, or "Asians" in the UK, adding Eastern Europeans certainly can only increase the quality. The countries joining the EU are relatively small and can subordinate themselves to the common requirements much easier than Russia. As long as this is an economic union, I don't see a clash. But try and outlaw "the holocaust" revisionism in Eastern Europe. Or make them love and enjoy the company of the darkies.
I am not even sure if it would be advantagious to Russia to conform to the myriad of EU requirements in order to join. Or whether the EU can hope to maintain stability and cohesiveness if they absorb such a huge country as Russia. Perhaps both Russian and EU bureaucrats aren't really looking forward to a marriage.