Wow, the New York Times Sucks!

As readers will know, La Russophobe recently sent inquiries to three newspapers, the Washington Post, Newsday and the New York Times to inquire about what publications in their pages had been made by David Johnson of Johnson’s Russia List fame.

Both the Post and Newsday promptly responded (the Post at the speed of light) and provided the information La Russophobe requested.

The Times however, always arrogant and insular, was another matter. Its editors totally ignored La Russophobe‘s inquiry, and when she complained about them to the Times‘ Public Editor, this is the response she got from his assistant Joseph Plambeck:

“This office doesn’t not [sic] provide or monitor this kind of research for the public.”

Yes, grammar error and all, that was the rude, boorish, arrogant response of the vaunted New York Times — which, perhaps not surprisingly, has published several letters to the editor from certified lunatic Mike Averko and just undergone two massive scandals involving false reporting on its front page (first Jayson Blair and then Judith Miller). No explanation of why it doesn’t provide this service, no apology, no help finding a source who might do so, just the cold, cavalier, brush-off. Apparently, the Times just plain doesn’t care if people make misrepresentations about having published in its pages. Probably it has enough to worry about tracking down its own misrepresentations, and trying to sweep them under the carpet. Still, you’d think that the Times would have a slightly better attitude towards customer service, seeing as how there is now so much competition from other papers, TV, Internet and what not (even, dare we say it . . . the dreaded blogs).

Truly, the Times is not what it used to be — and from the looks of things, like Russia itself, it is not much interested in getting better.

La Russophobe can’t help but note the irony that the Times is constantly attacking the Bush adminsitration for being arrogant and insular, and yet the Times itself behaves in exactly the same way.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Russian Stock Market in Free Fall

As the above table shows, the Russian stock market has lost 30% of its value since May 1st, this despite Russia’s massive inflow of windfall oil revenues. Can you imagine what would now be happening to the market without those revenues, or what will happen if the price of oil drops? Did anyone say Great Depression?

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Kremlin Bill Proposes Absolute Control Over Speech, Politics

The Gulf Times reports, via Reuters, on a bill pending in the Duma which would formally obliterate pluralism in Russia:

Russia’s pro-Kremlin parliament is to consider new laws on extremism that the opposition said are so sweeping they could be used to silence critics of President Vladimir Putin.

The draft legislation would make it possible to ban a party or candidate from politics if they made a statement that induced others to extremist actions or admitted the possibility of extremist action, according to a copy obtained by Reuters.

Opponents said that meant a politician could be pulled out of an election if, for example, he warned in a campaign speech that the government’s reforms were so unpopular they could provoke a wave of unlawful protests.

Backers of the draft say tough new legislation is needed to stem a wave of hate attacks against ethnic minorities. In one attack, a man shouting “Heil Hitler!” knifed worshippers in a synagogue, wounding nine people.

It would also cover Islamic radicals behind attacks on Russian officials in the North Caucasus.But the draft could mean more awkward questions for Putin when he hosts leaders of the Group of Eight countries in St Petersburg from July 15. Many Western governments already say the Kremlin is squeezing democratic freedoms.

Communist lawmaker Viktor Ilyukhin said the Kremlin wanted to use the threat of legal action over extremism to discourage its opponents from stepping out of line.

“A party that does not suit the presidential administration can be barred from an election or thrown out of parliament,” he said.

The legislation is supported by United Russia, the Kremlin-backed party that holds a huge majority in the parliament, or State Duma. Two smaller parties also back it.

A source in the presidential administration, who did not want to be identified, said the legislation was a Kremlin initiative. Lawmakers are expected to try to pass the draft before their summer recess in August. United Russia lawmaker Alexander Moskalets said the proposed measures would have a positive effect, encouraging parties to screen prospective candidates more carefully to weed out extremists. “The parties (should) not let random people onto their elections lists,” he said.

Russia votes in a parliamentary election next year that will be a dress rehearsal for a presidential vote in 2008. Pollsters say United Russia’s popularity is flagging and though it will hold on to its majority, it could lose seats.

A party or candidate in breach of the proposed extremism rules could be barred from taking part in an election or, if already elected, thrown out of parliament. A party could also have its registration – which it needs to operate – withdrawn.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Under Putin, Even the Great Bolshoi Goes to Pot

The Guadian’s Viv Groskop asks: It’s deep in debt, loks like a ruin, and may be shut for ten years. How did one of the world’s great theaters end up fighting for its life? La Russophobe dares to wonder whether this question isn’t applicable to all of Russia, with the answer being the same: The Russian people, and their 70% approval of Vladimir Putin’s Neo-Soviet Union.

The Bolshoi is Already Dead

The Bolshoi Theatre, one of Moscow’s most prominent landmarks, is a vast building site. Steel props hold up its cracked Greek columns. Rubbish chutes descend from 10 storeys up. Almost a year after it was closed for renovations, the Bolshoi looks ready to collapse. In Teatralnaya Ploschad, the square in front of the theatre, colourful pansies blow in the breeze but the whole area – a two-minute walk from Red Square and the Kremlin – feels like a ghost town. The dramatic marble fountain is switched off. The air is dusty and suffocating.The sound of a lone workman drilling is drowned out by the rumble of skateboarders in hoodies making the most of the empty space. Ramshackle blue Portakabins loom next to the entrance to the New Stage, a second theatre opened six years ago as a complement to the 180-year-old original, now its emergency replacement venue. Opera and ballet productions continue on the New Stage as well as at the Kremlin Palace, but at vastly reduced capacity: the second theatre seats 800 (the original seats 2,000) and there are reports of performers complaining about the lack of rehearsal and dressing rooms.

Inside the Bolshoi (“Big”) Theatre itself, the entire space has been stripped from the bottom up, the 19th-century wooden fixtures, silver stage curtain and French-made red velvet banquettes removed for repair in specialist workshops, each item individually photographed and catalogued. Disappointingly, the theatre’s famous feral cats are gone: they used to live under the stage, and the Bolshoi’s distinctive “zapakh” (aroma) is an in-joke among opera singers and dancers.

Picking her way through the debris, Lyuba Bushueva, a representative of Roscultura, the state organisation responsible for the renovation, explains: “The job of the experts is to keep everything – interior and exterior. Everything is being restored according to how it was done in the 19th century.” Vast quantities of dried beetles are being imported from South America, as they would have been 200 years ago, in order to dye the seating velvet to its original deep-raspberry colour.

The Bolshoi has been threatening to disintegrate for years. The original theatre was built between 1821 and 1825, then destroyed by fire and rebuilt in 1853. “In 1920, the building started to shake during a performance,” Bushueva says. “They fixed that with a concrete base beneath the floor – which affected the acoustics.” In 2002 a second world war bomb was discovered beneath one of the theatre’s entrances. But it wasn’t until last year’s closure that anyone realised exactly how serious the situation was. The foundations had sunk by 20cm. There were areas of brickwork that, when the restorers tried to take them apart, crumbled to the touch.

Acoustics are still the biggest concern, and are the reason that the theatre cannot be rebuilt from scratch. The wood used for the stage, seating, balconies and surrounds – over 150 years old – has, say the Russians, “excellent resonance”. They will not countenance getting rid of it, despite the difficulties and the danger. “The entire renovation is basically a war between safety and acoustics,” sighs Bushueva. One box, near the central “tsar’s box” (now Putin’s), has been restored for show. But after a year only this metre-wide stretch is finished: there is a whole building to go and less than two years to do it. The folly of this is obvious when you look at the details.There are thousands of metres of fabric to restore, and it takes 24 hours of workshop time, says Bushueva, to rework a patch that measures 50 square centimetres.

Moscow is awash with rumours about the theatre’s fate. The husband of a theatre-going friend, an ex-KGB officer who usually supports Vladimir Putin’s every move, says: “The president is from St Petersburg. He will always be rooting for the Mariinsky [the Bolshoi’s famous St Petersburg rival, formerly known as the Kirov]. The Bolshoi is already dead. Everyone in Moscow knows that.” This is part Russian hyperbole, part conspiracy theory (Mariinsky itself is due to close for three years), but by anyone’s reckoning, the estimate of a spring 2008 reopening is wildly optimistic. Some believe it could take 10 years.

For the dancers, even the best scenario – three years – is a long time. By the time the Bolshoi reopens, many of its stars will be past the peak of their careers. Earlier this year, the London launch of the Bolshoi’s extended summer season at Covent Garden, which runs from 25 July to 19 August, was a fascinating exercise in double-speak. The idea that the length and scope of the tour – unprecedented in recent years – could be related to the state of the building was graciously swept under the carpet. Anatoly Iksanov, director of the Bolshoi theatre, described this as a “very interesting period” in the company’s history: “I wouldn’t say we are sad it is closed … It is a stage of powerful development.”

There were jokes about the Soviet tradition for thanking the party having been replaced by obligations to commercial sponsors. But in fact all the finances for the renovation come from the state. There is currently a 5.5bn-rouble (£110m) deficit, and even though Roscultura insist the theatre can open and operate without it, in February Moscow’s mayor Yuri Luzhkov, no stranger to costly renovation projects, resigned from the Bolshoi’s board of trustees, saying, “I do not agree … with the time-frame for the renovation of the Bolshoi Theatre.”

In the meantime, you can still see the Bolshoi perform in Moscow: you’ll just have to do it in a much smaller building. It is a sorry state of affairs. At the London launch, Alexei Ratmansky, director of the ballet, said that Covent Garden was “our favourite stage next to the old Bolshoi stage”. In other words, with things as they are, even the theatre’s performers would rather not be there.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

The Sochi Scam

RIA Novosti reports that Russia intends to spend $7 billion refurbishing the seaside summer resort town of Sochi if it wins the 2014 Winter Olympics. No doubt, snow-making machines will be high on the list. Apparently, despite losing 1 million people per year and salaries of $300 per month, Vladimir Putin can think of nothing better to do with Russia’s money than try to buy the Olympic games.

La Russophobe dares to wonder whether this might not simply be smokescreen to allow Putin and his cronies to pump money into their new pleasure palace in Sochi, a la the Politburo, under the guise of preparing to host the games.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Bush versus Putin, Iraq versus Chechnya

Already this month, as La Russophobe has reported, Russia has experienced not one but two major terrorist events related to its ongoing conflict in Chechnya.

Unlike Iraq, Chechnya is a tiny country with no formal armed forces and it is contiguous to Russia’s border. To control Iraq, the U.S. must project its power across an ocean to deal with a country that, before it attacked had one of the world’s largest armies and had used weapons of mass destruction. To control Chechnya, Russia only hast to hop on a commuter train.

Yet, since America attacked Iraq, the U.S. has not experienced one single act of terrorism on its homeland, even though its borders are far more porous than those of most other countries and its society is far more open. Meanwhile, since attacking Chechnya, acts of terrorism on the Russian homeland are a regular occurrence.

It’s easy to find counters on the web showing U.S. casualties in Iraq. Is it just as easy to find them showing Russian casualties in Chechnya?

Nobody has more contempt for George Bush than La Russophobe. He is responsible, as much as any individual non-Russian, for the rise of the Neo-Soviet Union. His public opinion polls rightly suffer for his ham-handed handling of Iraq, and there is talk of Bush’s party losing control of the government in the U.S. Yet, international laughing stock that he is, Bush has kept Americans far safer from terrorism than KGB spy Vladimir Putin, whose poll numbers nonetheless continue at nosebleed levels. This either means that (a) the Russian people are uninformed, idiotic sheep or (b) they actually approve of Russia’s barbarity in Chechnya or (c) the polls contain ne0-Soviet cooked numbers.

Credit where credit is due. La Russophobe can’t attack Bush’s Russia policy without acknowledging his bravura success in dealing with domestic terrorism. So bravo to you on that, Sir. Now get your head out of your you-know-what and have another look at Russia (actually, given the recent sharply critical comments of his Veep and Secretary of State about Russia in recent weeks, it seems he may be doing just that!).

Meanwhile, La Russophobe can’t attack Putin without acknowledging his successes either. So, what are they? What has Putin done to improve Russia that is comparable to Bush keeping the USA safe from foreign enemies for five years, even as various groups of extremists salivate about revenge? In fact, what positive thing of any kind has he ever done while in office? Putin’s policies had nothing to do with the rising price of oil or the revenues that resulted, his policies can’t conceivably have influenced the price. Even Stalin and Hitler could point to various achievements of their regimes (electrification, trains running on time, etc.), things that their apologists use to try to justify their existences.

But Putin? Try as she might, La Russophobe just can’t think of anything. Readers are welcome to suggest some (if they can).

Meanwhile, Putin has alienated virtually every country in the world, supported dictatorship of the worst kind in Belarus, and continues to preside over violent, bloody, unsuccessful war in Chechnya. His country’s population continues to fall while it lives in abject poverty, with average salaries of $300 per month. He hoards the relatively limited supply of resources received from the oil revenues rather than investing them in his country, and he obliterates the last traces of pluralism and democracy, crushing the media and opposition political parties. Race violence is on the rampage and he has done nothing to stop it. One can go on and on (as this blog proves). The Russians are back to singing the Stalin anthem, and getting drummed out of international sports competitions left and right. Indeed, were Putin Bush, he would already long ago have been impeached.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Update on David Johnson’s Credentials

As La Russophobe‘s readers know, she is in the process of attempting to find out why David Johnson won’t cover Russian racism on his website. When last we wrote, she had discovered that his claim of having been published in the Washington Post was somewhat misleading, a la Mike Averko, since the Post had informed her that his only contribution to that august tribunal was a letter to the editor.

La Russophobe has now heard back from Newsday, another of the claimed outlets for Johnson’s wisdom. It turns out he is slightly more significant at Newsday, logical since Newsday is a significantly less significant paper. Newsday writes that like the Post it published a letter to the editor from Johnson in 1998, however nearly two decades ago, on October 29, 1986, he actually did have an op-ed piece in the paper, one called “Soviet Sphere Gets Smaller.” The article was co-authored with one Stephen Goose, also of Johnson’s CDI organization. The abstract on Newsday‘s website is:

Soviet global influence peaked in the late 1950s, when they had significant influence in 15 percent of the world’s nations. Those nations accounted for 31 percent of the world’s population and 9 percent of the world’s gross national product. Today, the Soviet Union has significant influence in 11 percent of the world’s countries, with 6 percent of the world’s population and GNP. (The “loss” of China and Indonesia primarily accounts for this decrease.) In the 1980s not a single new nation has fallen under significant Soviet influence and even in those nations under Soviet sway – like Mozambique, which has increasingly turned to the West for economic assistance – there has been a general pattern of reduced Soviet influence. The impoverished condition of Soviet allies in the Third World creates opportunities for the United States to use its vastly superior economic resources to increase American influence and decrease Soviet influence. A policy of “constructive engagement,” including diplomatic recognition and opening of trade, with pro-Soviet countries could work wonders.

The term “constructive engagement” sounds very similar to Martin Luther King’s “white moderate” and it is perhaps not suprising that such a policy would lead to the resurgence of neo-Soviet power so soon after Ronald Reagan’s “Evil Empire” confrontationalism brought the USSR crumbling down. Meanwhile, nothing on Newsday‘s relatively obscure pages from Johnson since then. In fact, as far as La Russophobe knows, precious little from Johnson himself appears in his own e-mail letter.

And the New York Times? It still has yet to respond to La Russophobe‘s inquiry, and she has written its public editor to complain about the delay. The Times has been having plenty of trouble these days: in addition to the stark humiliation of having published Mike Averko several times on its letters page, it has published Jayson Blair and Judy Miller and seen its chief editor get fired as a result, as well as both reporters. So it is perhaps not suprising that unlike the Post and Newsday the Times has yet to deliver the goods.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !