Way to Russia Talk Lounge

e · VIP Joined: 23 Apr 2005 Posts: 654

I don't know what planet you guys are living on, but on the Earth I live on, the United States doesn't give a crap about Yukos or Putin. As Vic mentioned, the US does not want to upset Russia, and therefore will not do anything about it. Putin, along with Blair, Sharon, Berlusconi, and Howard are the only political leaders Bush genuniunely likes and trusts.

If the US were really that concerned you'd see trade sanctions against Russia or blocking its admission to the WTO which it is doing niether. It also would've taken that case that was filed in US courts to which it did not. Russia is selling and building nuclear energy in Iran, does the US know this, yes. But has the US doing about it? No. Its actually going after Iran instead.

A few statements from Condelezza Rice don't actually mean policy.

Personally, I guess he gets what he derseves. If he legitimately broke the law, and it seems that he did, then he deserves what happens to him. He should've not been so reckless as he was, especially when dealing with Putin. Putin is just trying prevent a similar situation from happening in the United States where big business and money have too much influence and bounds in the political process. Something that the oligrachs have too much of in Russia already.

Mogsfan · WayToRussified Joined: 03 Nov 2004 Posts: 490

I agree, E. But, the U.S. has been quoted many times being concerned about Russia's supposed development of democracy. They care about Putin since he is the President so they desire democratic procedures and policies in the administration of Russia's government. We can all argue over how Russia's government is administered and just how much power Putin has at his disposal but the basic premise is the same: what type of government is Russia running and is it perceived as democratic. If so, it will be perceived as a major (potential) partner of the U.S.'s. If not, then Russia becomes an obstacle and a major problem. This means another problematic country to deal with and being "anti-democratic" is seen as a backwards step. Note, I am not supporting this view necessarily nor should it be perceived as "only the U.S. dictates what is and isn't a democracy" but some universal actions and policies can be perceived as democratic or not based on the universal democratic principles. That is, regardless of whether the U.S. considers one (or itself) democratic or not.

(Note: I believe most of the so-called "democracies" are a fascade but for the purposes of the discussion, it is assumed that we consider them as 'democratic as it's going to get.")

You are correct and accurate. If you are suggesting America "picks its spots" and decides to only act towards certain "players," I agree 100%.

Going after Iran is an easier target.

I only brought up Rice because it was the most public.

I am not sure if you misunderstood my post to some extent or not. But, I was talking about Putin's POSSIBLE bias and 'selective choosing' on who he was administering 'justice' to. I was suggesting it may be suspicious that he then charges Khodorkovsky (when he decided to fund opposing politicians). Would he be so quick to charge and administer justice if he or some others invest in Putin and his party? I mean, would he resist or decline such financial assistance in legal principle or would the conflict of interest be bypassed in order to secure financial security?

Is Khodorkovsky the only oligarch to resemble the American style of big business money financing political figures? I find that hard to believe.

Solid reply, though.

Vic · Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 7:28 am Post subject:

You are right, they do from time to time say that they are "concerned" about democracy in Russia. But it is one thing to say somethinga and another to do something about it. (You can talk the talk but can you walk the walk?)
Rice means nothing to anybody so it is pointless to quote her. After her comment about Abkhazia (That Abkhazia would WANT to rejoin Georgia since Georgia has made such democratic progress) completely discredits her in my eyes (and in the eyes of anybody living in Abkhazia, for that matter) Bush doesn't DO anything or SAY anything TO Putin for that matter. He says that he will bring it up but always avoids it - he does not want more problems than he already has (He also remembers who supported him during his last reelection I think)
Even if he did bring anything up, it would be absolutely pointless, Putin would not do anything about it.
Anyone see that 60 Minutes interview where Putin accused the US of being un-democratic? We did not set up any sanctions against the United States did we? (Btw, any sanctions would actually hurt the U.S. more than it would us, so that also factors in here)
Vic

init6 · Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 6:45 pm Post subject:

While I think there is definitely some political motivation to the trial, and to the sentence, Khodorkovsky is not just a "good capitalist." He didn't work hard, save his money and just maneuver his way into controlling Yukos. He stole it, with the help of Yeltsin, as did so many other oligarchs, using shares in state enterprise as loan guarantees to a government (Yeltsin's) they knew would default on the loan. Offshore shell corporations buy up the guaranteed shares (illegal) and Whoops! I own Yukos! Huzzah! Oh, I guess I should pay my taxes, too. Confused

I know it's not that simplified, but I don't think either side is "right" in this matter. These guys are dirty, plain and simple. Putin has an agenda, plain and simple.

Check this out - The Piratization of Russia by Marshall I. Goldman.

Ignoring criminal business behavior in the attempt to encourage foreign investment is not the way to build a healthy economy.

e · VIP Joined: 23 Apr 2005 Posts: 654

Mogsfan · WayToRussified Joined: 03 Nov 2004 Posts: 490

E, I disagree. I don't feel like arguing, though. It doesn't take a lot to discover the truth.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/06/c563d8de-6229-48ce-8523-84135801e42e.html

Putin is a hypocrite.

Is Putin an unprincipled irrelevant political puppet?

http://www.cdi.org/russia/271-14.cfm

http://www.cdi.org/russia/264-5.cfm

Basically, this is my analysis and perception. The Russian government, practically all of it, is corrupt to the core. Putin and the majority in the Duma. All of them. They are in bed with big business and put on a fascade that they are "fighting crime and corruption" when they are (actually) in bed with it. The disparity between rich and poor is due to consecutive corrupt government administrations from Gorby (least corrupt, perhaps? I dunno), Yeltsin and finally, Putin. Putin is the prototype politician. Says one thing, does another. The ultimate hypocrital liar, political puppet. The Russian government wishes to capitalize on profits of big business while restricting and eliminating opposing forces or problematic groups. Pure hypocracy and lying. There is not a genuine concern to "combat corruption" or implement reform. This neglect has continued since the early to mid-90s (this is when I was studying Russian politics). That status quo is still in effect only with a slightly different "face." The disparity of rich and poor is still very much a motive to continue the fascade and the disinterest for true reform which is evident from common complaints of bribery, injustices and authoritarian actions of the government.

This is my last (political) post as I am sure I will provoke the ire of the nationalist and biased Russians (and sympathetic unprincpled Westerners) here.

e · VIP Joined: 23 Apr 2005 Posts: 654

Mogs you're probably the most biased person in here next to Spartacus. Laughing

Mogsfan · WayToRussified Joined: 03 Nov 2004 Posts: 490

e · VIP Joined: 23 Apr 2005 Posts: 654

Coming from you that knows nothing about Russia its poltical, social, and economic structure other than what you read from garbage alternative media on the internet --but makes rediculous and bold proclimations like you are an expert on Russia and everything about it, i'll take that with a grain of salt biased one.

At least you can be like Vorteks and admit that you aren't that well informed about Russia and you can therefore ask and gain an insiders opinion from it which I recall is the point of this thread but noooo. We're all brainwashed, unprincipled and biased according to the great mogsfan. Laughing

Mogsfan · WayToRussified Joined: 03 Nov 2004 Posts: 490

Once again, E cannot respond without resorting to insults. Applause!!!!!

I never claimed to be an expert. I took a Russian politics course and also read a lot. I talk to a lot of Russians, too. I merely gave my interpretation of the issues and how I perceive things. Where did I claim I am some "expert?" IMHO (I hope you know that acronym), I think there are a lot of nationalist Russians who won't be objective and is not critical enough of their politicians. Is it not true that the Russian government has enormous control over their media? Or are you going to dispute this? Do I need an insider to tell me this or verifty it? Assuming this is accurate, do you suppose there is unbiased media or a fair number of sources to gather their news and info from? You think alternative media on the internet is shite so what do you suggest is balanced news information?

I hope that's a sufficient explanation for you.

Intourist · Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:26 am Post subject:

My humble opinion is that he deserves every bit if not more.

Let's first remember that Khodorkovsky's Menatep was rated by the CIA as one of the five most corrupt and mafia ridden organizations in the world. You can Google that if you want to. Early rumor had it that he got his start in the sex-trafficking industry. Corrupt in the 1990's meant contract hits, bribes, illegal take-overs, etc, etc.

Second, there's few (even in the West) that believe Khodorkovsky wasn't guilty of something. The main contention always seems to be "well, everyone else does it, so punishing Misha is being selective and the law is being abused". People, since when did everyone else doing it mean that one person shouldn't be punished ? I'm sure there are a lot of companies hiding profit in the US like Ken Lay and Enron, but I don't hear anyone complaining about that.

Third, there are political elements. Many here know that Khodorkovsky was surmounting what was akin to a political coup. Word has it Putin sat all the oligarchs down for lunch shortly after he was elected and showed them where they all had stashed (illegally) and warned them to toe the line or face the consequences. Immediately after that, Khdorokovsky invited them all to join him across the street at the Baltchug Kempinski Hotel and join forces with him. He knew it was a risky ploy trying to face down Putin, and it failed. They pegged him with what they had, and I'm sure 95% of it's true.

Mogsfan · WayToRussified Joined: 03 Nov 2004 Posts: 490

Intourist, I think that big business should not be financing politics and that Russia should stay a course in order to not become a Russianized "West" or America. However, what did you think of the link I presented?:

Roman Abramovich financed Putin, apparently. So, Putin talked with the oligarchs and said "stay out of politics" (but then whispered to them, "ohhh, but, you can finance me, THOUGH!). C'mon, man! Politicians are corrupt bastards. Khodorkovsky sounds like he is guilty of a coup attempt. But, how can anyone question that there isn't favouritism and inconsistent application of the law?!? It certainly seems that most of the oligarchs had side deals with the government, first with Yeltsin, then with Putin (as long as they financed them and/or didn't finance any opposition, they could make out like bandits?). Make money, pay taxes (code for: funnel the money to us) but don't give it to anyone else we don't like.

Vic · Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:57 pm Post subject:

No Oligarh financed V.V.Putin. He does not even need any sort of "financing" like Yeltsin did. If you have proof of it, please do present it. Abramovich also got a slap with some backtaxes if you can remember. (Shortly after Misha got locked up).

e · VIP Joined: 23 Apr 2005 Posts: 654

I agree with Vic. Mogs prove it. From a credible source and not from a personal blog like CDI or the incredibly biased radio free Europe.

Heres an article from the BBC that backs up Intourist:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4344447.stm

wavetossed · WayToRussified Joined: 27 Jun 2004 Posts: 337

Actually, Putin himself has publicly admitted that he received support from the oligarchs. He said this sometime in the past 3 months and it was quoted on the website of Channel 1 TV http://www.1tv.ru which often publishes lengthy quotes from Putin. I believe it was around the time he made it clear that he will not run for another term because that's what the law says and he has no intention to change it.

Putin can be very frank at times, such as his comments about blackmail on Friday at the meeting of the Security Council of the Russian Federation. This news item is probably still on the front page of the website above. The topic of the meeting was the Moscow blackout, the negligence of UES management in not making sure that the technical affairs were taken care of, like spending a hundred thousand to replace a generator so that the system does not collapse in a cascading failure. And he also criticised the restructuring that saw each power station owned by one company and operated by another. This sounds a lot like the same structural problem created in the UK with the national railways. We are still trying to fix that mess. Hopefully, Putin's frankness will lead to some real action in Russia. They have already shown that their system is inherently more robust than the power system in North America. Now they need to keep it in good repair.