More Booze Bedlam in Putin’s Russia

If Russia can’t even manage to get booze right, what possible hope is there for anything else? The Times of London reports that “Russian women are facing a bleak winter without perfume because of a government crackdown on bootleg alcohol.” How are the two related? The Times explains:

The beauty business has been thrown into turmoil by the introduction of a licensing regime for goods containing more than 1.5 per cent alcohol.

The rule was intended to regulate the drinks industry as part of efforts to curb alcohol abuse. However, it has also left cosmetics companies unable to produce, import or distribute perfume and other products containing alcohol.

Russia’s women must now endure the sobering prospect of empty shelves and soaring prices as supplies of scent, hair spray and deodorant dry up.

German Gref, the Economic Development Minister, who was described by one Russian paper as the Government’s chief “mod” because of his penchant for sharp suits, promised to amend the law to exempt cosmetics.

However, industry representatives told The Times yesterday that the Russian Parliament, the Duma, was unlikely to make the reform in time to prevent Christmas and New Year shortages. They fear that criminal gangs will cash in by flooding the market with fake goods.

Just 187 of Russia’s 3,500 legal distributors have obtained a 230,000 rouble (£4,600) licence since the regulation was introduced in July.

Viktor Kramarenko, a spokesman for Procter & Gamble, Russia’s largest cosmetics company, said that people in smaller cities were already finding it hard to buy products. “If the amendment is not moved quickly, shortages of perfumes and cosmetics are inevitable at the most unfortunate time of the year. Given the speed of the legislative process, it will probably take effect in January at best,” he said.

Tatiana Puchkova, chairman of the Perfumery and Cosmetics Association of Russia, said that supplies fell by 75 per cent in August and had recovered little since then.

“If nothing changes before January then the situation will be terrible. It will be difficult to find perfume and there will be a very big problem of black market production,” she said. “We hope that things will be changed in time for Christmas, but everything depends on the Duma. They must decide within one month.”

The licensing system, which is supervised by the Federal Security Service, the KGB’s successor, was intended to halt a trade in cheap perfume containing bootleg alcohol that alcoholics were buying to drink.

Sergei Bolshakov, the managing director of the Association of Perfumery, Cosmetics and Household Chemicals Manufacturers, said: “People are not buying $100 perfumes so that they can drink them. We are happy that the Government has recognised the crisis that it created, but there is no way that supplies can be restored before Christmas. There are already shortages and prices are doubling for some products.”

Russia’s cosmetics market is worth $7.3 billion (£3.9 billion) a year and almost half of products exceed the threshold for the Government’s alcohol-monitoring regime. As well as the licence, companies were expected to pay a monthly fee of 20,000 roubles.

And remember now, these are good times for the Kremlin, which is awash in oil revenues and hasn’t yet begun to really feel the sting of the new cold war it has provoked. Can you imagine what sort of catastrophes will befall Russia at the hands of this government when things get bad?

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

More Booze Bedlam in Putin’s Russia

If Russia can’t even manage to get booze right, what possible hope is there for anything else? The Times of London reports that “Russian women are facing a bleak winter without perfume because of a government crackdown on bootleg alcohol.” How are the two related? The Times explains:

The beauty business has been thrown into turmoil by the introduction of a licensing regime for goods containing more than 1.5 per cent alcohol.

The rule was intended to regulate the drinks industry as part of efforts to curb alcohol abuse. However, it has also left cosmetics companies unable to produce, import or distribute perfume and other products containing alcohol.

Russia’s women must now endure the sobering prospect of empty shelves and soaring prices as supplies of scent, hair spray and deodorant dry up.

German Gref, the Economic Development Minister, who was described by one Russian paper as the Government’s chief “mod” because of his penchant for sharp suits, promised to amend the law to exempt cosmetics.

However, industry representatives told The Times yesterday that the Russian Parliament, the Duma, was unlikely to make the reform in time to prevent Christmas and New Year shortages. They fear that criminal gangs will cash in by flooding the market with fake goods.

Just 187 of Russia’s 3,500 legal distributors have obtained a 230,000 rouble (£4,600) licence since the regulation was introduced in July.

Viktor Kramarenko, a spokesman for Procter & Gamble, Russia’s largest cosmetics company, said that people in smaller cities were already finding it hard to buy products. “If the amendment is not moved quickly, shortages of perfumes and cosmetics are inevitable at the most unfortunate time of the year. Given the speed of the legislative process, it will probably take effect in January at best,” he said.

Tatiana Puchkova, chairman of the Perfumery and Cosmetics Association of Russia, said that supplies fell by 75 per cent in August and had recovered little since then.

“If nothing changes before January then the situation will be terrible. It will be difficult to find perfume and there will be a very big problem of black market production,” she said. “We hope that things will be changed in time for Christmas, but everything depends on the Duma. They must decide within one month.”

The licensing system, which is supervised by the Federal Security Service, the KGB’s successor, was intended to halt a trade in cheap perfume containing bootleg alcohol that alcoholics were buying to drink.

Sergei Bolshakov, the managing director of the Association of Perfumery, Cosmetics and Household Chemicals Manufacturers, said: “People are not buying $100 perfumes so that they can drink them. We are happy that the Government has recognised the crisis that it created, but there is no way that supplies can be restored before Christmas. There are already shortages and prices are doubling for some products.”

Russia’s cosmetics market is worth $7.3 billion (£3.9 billion) a year and almost half of products exceed the threshold for the Government’s alcohol-monitoring regime. As well as the licence, companies were expected to pay a monthly fee of 20,000 roubles.

And remember now, these are good times for the Kremlin, which is awash in oil revenues and hasn’t yet begun to really feel the sting of the new cold war it has provoked. Can you imagine what sort of catastrophes will befall Russia at the hands of this government when things get bad?

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

More Booze Bedlam in Putin’s Russia

If Russia can’t even manage to get booze right, what possible hope is there for anything else? The Times of London reports that “Russian women are facing a bleak winter without perfume because of a government crackdown on bootleg alcohol.” How are the two related? The Times explains:

The beauty business has been thrown into turmoil by the introduction of a licensing regime for goods containing more than 1.5 per cent alcohol.

The rule was intended to regulate the drinks industry as part of efforts to curb alcohol abuse. However, it has also left cosmetics companies unable to produce, import or distribute perfume and other products containing alcohol.

Russia’s women must now endure the sobering prospect of empty shelves and soaring prices as supplies of scent, hair spray and deodorant dry up.

German Gref, the Economic Development Minister, who was described by one Russian paper as the Government’s chief “mod” because of his penchant for sharp suits, promised to amend the law to exempt cosmetics.

However, industry representatives told The Times yesterday that the Russian Parliament, the Duma, was unlikely to make the reform in time to prevent Christmas and New Year shortages. They fear that criminal gangs will cash in by flooding the market with fake goods.

Just 187 of Russia’s 3,500 legal distributors have obtained a 230,000 rouble (£4,600) licence since the regulation was introduced in July.

Viktor Kramarenko, a spokesman for Procter & Gamble, Russia’s largest cosmetics company, said that people in smaller cities were already finding it hard to buy products. “If the amendment is not moved quickly, shortages of perfumes and cosmetics are inevitable at the most unfortunate time of the year. Given the speed of the legislative process, it will probably take effect in January at best,” he said.

Tatiana Puchkova, chairman of the Perfumery and Cosmetics Association of Russia, said that supplies fell by 75 per cent in August and had recovered little since then.

“If nothing changes before January then the situation will be terrible. It will be difficult to find perfume and there will be a very big problem of black market production,” she said. “We hope that things will be changed in time for Christmas, but everything depends on the Duma. They must decide within one month.”

The licensing system, which is supervised by the Federal Security Service, the KGB’s successor, was intended to halt a trade in cheap perfume containing bootleg alcohol that alcoholics were buying to drink.

Sergei Bolshakov, the managing director of the Association of Perfumery, Cosmetics and Household Chemicals Manufacturers, said: “People are not buying $100 perfumes so that they can drink them. We are happy that the Government has recognised the crisis that it created, but there is no way that supplies can be restored before Christmas. There are already shortages and prices are doubling for some products.”

Russia’s cosmetics market is worth $7.3 billion (£3.9 billion) a year and almost half of products exceed the threshold for the Government’s alcohol-monitoring regime. As well as the licence, companies were expected to pay a monthly fee of 20,000 roubles.

And remember now, these are good times for the Kremlin, which is awash in oil revenues and hasn’t yet begun to really feel the sting of the new cold war it has provoked. Can you imagine what sort of catastrophes will befall Russia at the hands of this government when things get bad?

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

More Booze Bedlam in Putin’s Russia

If Russia can’t even manage to get booze right, what possible hope is there for anything else? The Times of London reports that “Russian women are facing a bleak winter without perfume because of a government crackdown on bootleg alcohol.” How are the two related? The Times explains:

The beauty business has been thrown into turmoil by the introduction of a licensing regime for goods containing more than 1.5 per cent alcohol.

The rule was intended to regulate the drinks industry as part of efforts to curb alcohol abuse. However, it has also left cosmetics companies unable to produce, import or distribute perfume and other products containing alcohol.

Russia’s women must now endure the sobering prospect of empty shelves and soaring prices as supplies of scent, hair spray and deodorant dry up.

German Gref, the Economic Development Minister, who was described by one Russian paper as the Government’s chief “mod” because of his penchant for sharp suits, promised to amend the law to exempt cosmetics.

However, industry representatives told The Times yesterday that the Russian Parliament, the Duma, was unlikely to make the reform in time to prevent Christmas and New Year shortages. They fear that criminal gangs will cash in by flooding the market with fake goods.

Just 187 of Russia’s 3,500 legal distributors have obtained a 230,000 rouble (£4,600) licence since the regulation was introduced in July.

Viktor Kramarenko, a spokesman for Procter & Gamble, Russia’s largest cosmetics company, said that people in smaller cities were already finding it hard to buy products. “If the amendment is not moved quickly, shortages of perfumes and cosmetics are inevitable at the most unfortunate time of the year. Given the speed of the legislative process, it will probably take effect in January at best,” he said.

Tatiana Puchkova, chairman of the Perfumery and Cosmetics Association of Russia, said that supplies fell by 75 per cent in August and had recovered little since then.

“If nothing changes before January then the situation will be terrible. It will be difficult to find perfume and there will be a very big problem of black market production,” she said. “We hope that things will be changed in time for Christmas, but everything depends on the Duma. They must decide within one month.”

The licensing system, which is supervised by the Federal Security Service, the KGB’s successor, was intended to halt a trade in cheap perfume containing bootleg alcohol that alcoholics were buying to drink.

Sergei Bolshakov, the managing director of the Association of Perfumery, Cosmetics and Household Chemicals Manufacturers, said: “People are not buying $100 perfumes so that they can drink them. We are happy that the Government has recognised the crisis that it created, but there is no way that supplies can be restored before Christmas. There are already shortages and prices are doubling for some products.”

Russia’s cosmetics market is worth $7.3 billion (£3.9 billion) a year and almost half of products exceed the threshold for the Government’s alcohol-monitoring regime. As well as the licence, companies were expected to pay a monthly fee of 20,000 roubles.

And remember now, these are good times for the Kremlin, which is awash in oil revenues and hasn’t yet begun to really feel the sting of the new cold war it has provoked. Can you imagine what sort of catastrophes will befall Russia at the hands of this government when things get bad?

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

More Booze Bedlam in Putin’s Russia

If Russia can’t even manage to get booze right, what possible hope is there for anything else? The Times of London reports that “Russian women are facing a bleak winter without perfume because of a government crackdown on bootleg alcohol.” How are the two related? The Times explains:

The beauty business has been thrown into turmoil by the introduction of a licensing regime for goods containing more than 1.5 per cent alcohol.

The rule was intended to regulate the drinks industry as part of efforts to curb alcohol abuse. However, it has also left cosmetics companies unable to produce, import or distribute perfume and other products containing alcohol.

Russia’s women must now endure the sobering prospect of empty shelves and soaring prices as supplies of scent, hair spray and deodorant dry up.

German Gref, the Economic Development Minister, who was described by one Russian paper as the Government’s chief “mod” because of his penchant for sharp suits, promised to amend the law to exempt cosmetics.

However, industry representatives told The Times yesterday that the Russian Parliament, the Duma, was unlikely to make the reform in time to prevent Christmas and New Year shortages. They fear that criminal gangs will cash in by flooding the market with fake goods.

Just 187 of Russia’s 3,500 legal distributors have obtained a 230,000 rouble (£4,600) licence since the regulation was introduced in July.

Viktor Kramarenko, a spokesman for Procter & Gamble, Russia’s largest cosmetics company, said that people in smaller cities were already finding it hard to buy products. “If the amendment is not moved quickly, shortages of perfumes and cosmetics are inevitable at the most unfortunate time of the year. Given the speed of the legislative process, it will probably take effect in January at best,” he said.

Tatiana Puchkova, chairman of the Perfumery and Cosmetics Association of Russia, said that supplies fell by 75 per cent in August and had recovered little since then.

“If nothing changes before January then the situation will be terrible. It will be difficult to find perfume and there will be a very big problem of black market production,” she said. “We hope that things will be changed in time for Christmas, but everything depends on the Duma. They must decide within one month.”

The licensing system, which is supervised by the Federal Security Service, the KGB’s successor, was intended to halt a trade in cheap perfume containing bootleg alcohol that alcoholics were buying to drink.

Sergei Bolshakov, the managing director of the Association of Perfumery, Cosmetics and Household Chemicals Manufacturers, said: “People are not buying $100 perfumes so that they can drink them. We are happy that the Government has recognised the crisis that it created, but there is no way that supplies can be restored before Christmas. There are already shortages and prices are doubling for some products.”

Russia’s cosmetics market is worth $7.3 billion (£3.9 billion) a year and almost half of products exceed the threshold for the Government’s alcohol-monitoring regime. As well as the licence, companies were expected to pay a monthly fee of 20,000 roubles.

And remember now, these are good times for the Kremlin, which is awash in oil revenues and hasn’t yet begun to really feel the sting of the new cold war it has provoked. Can you imagine what sort of catastrophes will befall Russia at the hands of this government when things get bad?

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Moscow’s Grand Design

Here’s why Alexander Lukin, director of the Center for East Asian and SCO Studies at the Foreign Ministry’s Moscow State Institute of International Relations, or MGIMO, thinks Russia should favor controlling North Korea’s nuclear weapons:

Currently only a few countries have nuclear weapons, and Russia and the United States have many times more than any of the other nuclear states. If the current structure of the United Nations guarantees Russia special status among other countries as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, then the nuclear-weapons non-proliferation regime is at the base of Russia’s position as one of the world’s two most powerful countries. This means the nuclear weapons proliferation seriously devalues Russia’s influence in the world. It is all very simple: the more nuclear states there are, the less Russia’s comparative military might become. This is a purely pragmatic consideration, to which can be added a number of other negative consequences from further nuclear proliferation: an increased probability of nuclear conflict, threats to national security in the Far East, and so on.

So Lukin couldn’t care less about world peace, but he feels that if North Korea has nukes it will undermine Russia’s ability to ply the world with nuclear blackmail of its own, apparently the sole potential basis of Russian military power.

And he’s rather mercenary about it. He thinks that not only can Russia help the US to block North Korean nukes, but it can extract favors from the U.S., including selling Georgia down the river, in return for doing what is in Russia’s interest anyway. He writes:

There is also the possibility for horse-trading here. For example, Russia stiffens its position on Korea — which is good for Moscow anyway — in exchange for a softer U.S. position on Georgia (an operation the Foreign Ministry seems to have carried out successfully). Active defense of Russian interests is not compatible with the primitive anti-Americanism characteristic of pseudo-patriots and some highly placed figures apparently unable to overcome their Soviet special-services training. While possibly taking a more assertive position on some questions, it is essential to work closely with Washington and the West as a whole on others. Genuine patriotism is not made of hysterical anti-Westernism, but of strengthening one’s own country. To paraphrase the words of Petr Stolypin, prime minster under Nicholas II, we can say, “They need a weak America, we need a strong Russia.” Taking this literally, the Kremlin leadership still occasionally lets itself be influenced by traditional feelings that ultimately boomerang and produce a foreign policy that is ultimately unproductive for Russia.

Further, he claims that Russia should favor the unification of South and North Korea as a way of expanding Russian influence in the region:

The creation of a united Korea would be good for Russia, both geopolitically and economically. First, a united Korean state — which would undoubtedly be based on the far more viable South Korea — will be less dependant on U.S. influence, since its influence on Seoul is largely dependent on the threat from the North. Second, a united Korea’s relations with Japan will be tricky due to the historical problems between the countries. It would also look with some trepidation at its huge and booming neighbor, China. For Russia, which also has serious and stubborn difficulties with Japan, and for which a powerful China represents a strategic challenge, a united Korea could become a geopolitical partner in the same mold as, for example, India. In addition, an economically advanced and unified Korea that is still closer to Russia’s level of development than that of more advanced Japan could make a significant contribution to the development of the Far East and Siberian regions. The population of these regions traditionally favors collaboration with the Koreans and has fewer reservations about them than it does, for example, about the Chinese.

He castigates classic Soviet men for not being as enlightened as Neo-Soviet men like himself. He states: “When I hear ‘patriots’ like General Leonid Ivashov, former head of the Defense Ministry’s department for international cooperation, saying nuclear weapons are the only defense some countries have against possible aggression by the United States, and that Russia should support these countries in this, I feel like accusing them of treason.” In other words, sure we want to destroy the Americans, and take over the world and obliterate democracy, but there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. La Russophobe‘s guess is that he’s channelling Vladimir Putin.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Moscow’s Grand Design

Here’s why Alexander Lukin, director of the Center for East Asian and SCO Studies at the Foreign Ministry’s Moscow State Institute of International Relations, or MGIMO, thinks Russia should favor controlling North Korea’s nuclear weapons:

Currently only a few countries have nuclear weapons, and Russia and the United States have many times more than any of the other nuclear states. If the current structure of the United Nations guarantees Russia special status among other countries as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, then the nuclear-weapons non-proliferation regime is at the base of Russia’s position as one of the world’s two most powerful countries. This means the nuclear weapons proliferation seriously devalues Russia’s influence in the world. It is all very simple: the more nuclear states there are, the less Russia’s comparative military might become. This is a purely pragmatic consideration, to which can be added a number of other negative consequences from further nuclear proliferation: an increased probability of nuclear conflict, threats to national security in the Far East, and so on.

So Lukin couldn’t care less about world peace, but he feels that if North Korea has nukes it will undermine Russia’s ability to ply the world with nuclear blackmail of its own, apparently the sole potential basis of Russian military power.

And he’s rather mercenary about it. He thinks that not only can Russia help the US to block North Korean nukes, but it can extract favors from the U.S., including selling Georgia down the river, in return for doing what is in Russia’s interest anyway. He writes:

There is also the possibility for horse-trading here. For example, Russia stiffens its position on Korea — which is good for Moscow anyway — in exchange for a softer U.S. position on Georgia (an operation the Foreign Ministry seems to have carried out successfully). Active defense of Russian interests is not compatible with the primitive anti-Americanism characteristic of pseudo-patriots and some highly placed figures apparently unable to overcome their Soviet special-services training. While possibly taking a more assertive position on some questions, it is essential to work closely with Washington and the West as a whole on others. Genuine patriotism is not made of hysterical anti-Westernism, but of strengthening one’s own country. To paraphrase the words of Petr Stolypin, prime minster under Nicholas II, we can say, “They need a weak America, we need a strong Russia.” Taking this literally, the Kremlin leadership still occasionally lets itself be influenced by traditional feelings that ultimately boomerang and produce a foreign policy that is ultimately unproductive for Russia.

Further, he claims that Russia should favor the unification of South and North Korea as a way of expanding Russian influence in the region:

The creation of a united Korea would be good for Russia, both geopolitically and economically. First, a united Korean state — which would undoubtedly be based on the far more viable South Korea — will be less dependant on U.S. influence, since its influence on Seoul is largely dependent on the threat from the North. Second, a united Korea’s relations with Japan will be tricky due to the historical problems between the countries. It would also look with some trepidation at its huge and booming neighbor, China. For Russia, which also has serious and stubborn difficulties with Japan, and for which a powerful China represents a strategic challenge, a united Korea could become a geopolitical partner in the same mold as, for example, India. In addition, an economically advanced and unified Korea that is still closer to Russia’s level of development than that of more advanced Japan could make a significant contribution to the development of the Far East and Siberian regions. The population of these regions traditionally favors collaboration with the Koreans and has fewer reservations about them than it does, for example, about the Chinese.

He castigates classic Soviet men for not being as enlightened as Neo-Soviet men like himself. He states: “When I hear ‘patriots’ like General Leonid Ivashov, former head of the Defense Ministry’s department for international cooperation, saying nuclear weapons are the only defense some countries have against possible aggression by the United States, and that Russia should support these countries in this, I feel like accusing them of treason.” In other words, sure we want to destroy the Americans, and take over the world and obliterate democracy, but there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. La Russophobe‘s guess is that he’s channelling Vladimir Putin.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Moscow’s Grand Design

Here’s why Alexander Lukin, director of the Center for East Asian and SCO Studies at the Foreign Ministry’s Moscow State Institute of International Relations, or MGIMO, thinks Russia should favor controlling North Korea’s nuclear weapons:

Currently only a few countries have nuclear weapons, and Russia and the United States have many times more than any of the other nuclear states. If the current structure of the United Nations guarantees Russia special status among other countries as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, then the nuclear-weapons non-proliferation regime is at the base of Russia’s position as one of the world’s two most powerful countries. This means the nuclear weapons proliferation seriously devalues Russia’s influence in the world. It is all very simple: the more nuclear states there are, the less Russia’s comparative military might become. This is a purely pragmatic consideration, to which can be added a number of other negative consequences from further nuclear proliferation: an increased probability of nuclear conflict, threats to national security in the Far East, and so on.

So Lukin couldn’t care less about world peace, but he feels that if North Korea has nukes it will undermine Russia’s ability to ply the world with nuclear blackmail of its own, apparently the sole potential basis of Russian military power.

And he’s rather mercenary about it. He thinks that not only can Russia help the US to block North Korean nukes, but it can extract favors from the U.S., including selling Georgia down the river, in return for doing what is in Russia’s interest anyway. He writes:

There is also the possibility for horse-trading here. For example, Russia stiffens its position on Korea — which is good for Moscow anyway — in exchange for a softer U.S. position on Georgia (an operation the Foreign Ministry seems to have carried out successfully). Active defense of Russian interests is not compatible with the primitive anti-Americanism characteristic of pseudo-patriots and some highly placed figures apparently unable to overcome their Soviet special-services training. While possibly taking a more assertive position on some questions, it is essential to work closely with Washington and the West as a whole on others. Genuine patriotism is not made of hysterical anti-Westernism, but of strengthening one’s own country. To paraphrase the words of Petr Stolypin, prime minster under Nicholas II, we can say, “They need a weak America, we need a strong Russia.” Taking this literally, the Kremlin leadership still occasionally lets itself be influenced by traditional feelings that ultimately boomerang and produce a foreign policy that is ultimately unproductive for Russia.

Further, he claims that Russia should favor the unification of South and North Korea as a way of expanding Russian influence in the region:

The creation of a united Korea would be good for Russia, both geopolitically and economically. First, a united Korean state — which would undoubtedly be based on the far more viable South Korea — will be less dependant on U.S. influence, since its influence on Seoul is largely dependent on the threat from the North. Second, a united Korea’s relations with Japan will be tricky due to the historical problems between the countries. It would also look with some trepidation at its huge and booming neighbor, China. For Russia, which also has serious and stubborn difficulties with Japan, and for which a powerful China represents a strategic challenge, a united Korea could become a geopolitical partner in the same mold as, for example, India. In addition, an economically advanced and unified Korea that is still closer to Russia’s level of development than that of more advanced Japan could make a significant contribution to the development of the Far East and Siberian regions. The population of these regions traditionally favors collaboration with the Koreans and has fewer reservations about them than it does, for example, about the Chinese.

He castigates classic Soviet men for not being as enlightened as Neo-Soviet men like himself. He states: “When I hear ‘patriots’ like General Leonid Ivashov, former head of the Defense Ministry’s department for international cooperation, saying nuclear weapons are the only defense some countries have against possible aggression by the United States, and that Russia should support these countries in this, I feel like accusing them of treason.” In other words, sure we want to destroy the Americans, and take over the world and obliterate democracy, but there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. La Russophobe‘s guess is that he’s channelling Vladimir Putin.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Moscow’s Grand Design

Here’s why Alexander Lukin, director of the Center for East Asian and SCO Studies at the Foreign Ministry’s Moscow State Institute of International Relations, or MGIMO, thinks Russia should favor controlling North Korea’s nuclear weapons:

Currently only a few countries have nuclear weapons, and Russia and the United States have many times more than any of the other nuclear states. If the current structure of the United Nations guarantees Russia special status among other countries as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, then the nuclear-weapons non-proliferation regime is at the base of Russia’s position as one of the world’s two most powerful countries. This means the nuclear weapons proliferation seriously devalues Russia’s influence in the world. It is all very simple: the more nuclear states there are, the less Russia’s comparative military might become. This is a purely pragmatic consideration, to which can be added a number of other negative consequences from further nuclear proliferation: an increased probability of nuclear conflict, threats to national security in the Far East, and so on.

So Lukin couldn’t care less about world peace, but he feels that if North Korea has nukes it will undermine Russia’s ability to ply the world with nuclear blackmail of its own, apparently the sole potential basis of Russian military power.

And he’s rather mercenary about it. He thinks that not only can Russia help the US to block North Korean nukes, but it can extract favors from the U.S., including selling Georgia down the river, in return for doing what is in Russia’s interest anyway. He writes:

There is also the possibility for horse-trading here. For example, Russia stiffens its position on Korea — which is good for Moscow anyway — in exchange for a softer U.S. position on Georgia (an operation the Foreign Ministry seems to have carried out successfully). Active defense of Russian interests is not compatible with the primitive anti-Americanism characteristic of pseudo-patriots and some highly placed figures apparently unable to overcome their Soviet special-services training. While possibly taking a more assertive position on some questions, it is essential to work closely with Washington and the West as a whole on others. Genuine patriotism is not made of hysterical anti-Westernism, but of strengthening one’s own country. To paraphrase the words of Petr Stolypin, prime minster under Nicholas II, we can say, “They need a weak America, we need a strong Russia.” Taking this literally, the Kremlin leadership still occasionally lets itself be influenced by traditional feelings that ultimately boomerang and produce a foreign policy that is ultimately unproductive for Russia.

Further, he claims that Russia should favor the unification of South and North Korea as a way of expanding Russian influence in the region:

The creation of a united Korea would be good for Russia, both geopolitically and economically. First, a united Korean state — which would undoubtedly be based on the far more viable South Korea — will be less dependant on U.S. influence, since its influence on Seoul is largely dependent on the threat from the North. Second, a united Korea’s relations with Japan will be tricky due to the historical problems between the countries. It would also look with some trepidation at its huge and booming neighbor, China. For Russia, which also has serious and stubborn difficulties with Japan, and for which a powerful China represents a strategic challenge, a united Korea could become a geopolitical partner in the same mold as, for example, India. In addition, an economically advanced and unified Korea that is still closer to Russia’s level of development than that of more advanced Japan could make a significant contribution to the development of the Far East and Siberian regions. The population of these regions traditionally favors collaboration with the Koreans and has fewer reservations about them than it does, for example, about the Chinese.

He castigates classic Soviet men for not being as enlightened as Neo-Soviet men like himself. He states: “When I hear ‘patriots’ like General Leonid Ivashov, former head of the Defense Ministry’s department for international cooperation, saying nuclear weapons are the only defense some countries have against possible aggression by the United States, and that Russia should support these countries in this, I feel like accusing them of treason.” In other words, sure we want to destroy the Americans, and take over the world and obliterate democracy, but there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. La Russophobe‘s guess is that he’s channelling Vladimir Putin.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Moscow’s Grand Design

Here’s why Alexander Lukin, director of the Center for East Asian and SCO Studies at the Foreign Ministry’s Moscow State Institute of International Relations, or MGIMO, thinks Russia should favor controlling North Korea’s nuclear weapons:

Currently only a few countries have nuclear weapons, and Russia and the United States have many times more than any of the other nuclear states. If the current structure of the United Nations guarantees Russia special status among other countries as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, then the nuclear-weapons non-proliferation regime is at the base of Russia’s position as one of the world’s two most powerful countries. This means the nuclear weapons proliferation seriously devalues Russia’s influence in the world. It is all very simple: the more nuclear states there are, the less Russia’s comparative military might become. This is a purely pragmatic consideration, to which can be added a number of other negative consequences from further nuclear proliferation: an increased probability of nuclear conflict, threats to national security in the Far East, and so on.

So Lukin couldn’t care less about world peace, but he feels that if North Korea has nukes it will undermine Russia’s ability to ply the world with nuclear blackmail of its own, apparently the sole potential basis of Russian military power.

And he’s rather mercenary about it. He thinks that not only can Russia help the US to block North Korean nukes, but it can extract favors from the U.S., including selling Georgia down the river, in return for doing what is in Russia’s interest anyway. He writes:

There is also the possibility for horse-trading here. For example, Russia stiffens its position on Korea — which is good for Moscow anyway — in exchange for a softer U.S. position on Georgia (an operation the Foreign Ministry seems to have carried out successfully). Active defense of Russian interests is not compatible with the primitive anti-Americanism characteristic of pseudo-patriots and some highly placed figures apparently unable to overcome their Soviet special-services training. While possibly taking a more assertive position on some questions, it is essential to work closely with Washington and the West as a whole on others. Genuine patriotism is not made of hysterical anti-Westernism, but of strengthening one’s own country. To paraphrase the words of Petr Stolypin, prime minster under Nicholas II, we can say, “They need a weak America, we need a strong Russia.” Taking this literally, the Kremlin leadership still occasionally lets itself be influenced by traditional feelings that ultimately boomerang and produce a foreign policy that is ultimately unproductive for Russia.

Further, he claims that Russia should favor the unification of South and North Korea as a way of expanding Russian influence in the region:

The creation of a united Korea would be good for Russia, both geopolitically and economically. First, a united Korean state — which would undoubtedly be based on the far more viable South Korea — will be less dependant on U.S. influence, since its influence on Seoul is largely dependent on the threat from the North. Second, a united Korea’s relations with Japan will be tricky due to the historical problems between the countries. It would also look with some trepidation at its huge and booming neighbor, China. For Russia, which also has serious and stubborn difficulties with Japan, and for which a powerful China represents a strategic challenge, a united Korea could become a geopolitical partner in the same mold as, for example, India. In addition, an economically advanced and unified Korea that is still closer to Russia’s level of development than that of more advanced Japan could make a significant contribution to the development of the Far East and Siberian regions. The population of these regions traditionally favors collaboration with the Koreans and has fewer reservations about them than it does, for example, about the Chinese.

He castigates classic Soviet men for not being as enlightened as Neo-Soviet men like himself. He states: “When I hear ‘patriots’ like General Leonid Ivashov, former head of the Defense Ministry’s department for international cooperation, saying nuclear weapons are the only defense some countries have against possible aggression by the United States, and that Russia should support these countries in this, I feel like accusing them of treason.” In other words, sure we want to destroy the Americans, and take over the world and obliterate democracy, but there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. La Russophobe‘s guess is that he’s channelling Vladimir Putin.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Here Comes Typhoid

The Moscow Times reports that G-8 Russia is now facing outbreaks of typhoid, a classic third-world malady:

Sixty-seven cadets from St. Petersburg’s Mozhaisky Military Space Academy have been diagnosed with typhoid fever after 286 in total were hospitalized with food poisoning, Interfax reported Monday. All the cadets are in stable condition, and the Defense Ministry is on top of the situation, Alexei Kuznetsov, a spokesman for the Space Forces, told Interfax.

Kuznetsov said that 286 cadets were admitted to the 442nd District Military Hospital several days ago, and that salmonella poisoning had been confirmed in 57 cases. The outbreak began last week, when one of the cadets felt unwell and was immediately hospitalized. Soon 166 cadets were rushed to the hospital with a suspected “infectious disease. All the cadets eat in the same canteen, which has been identified as the source of the poisoning, the St. Petersburg-based Fonatanka.ru news portal reported Monday.

A mass poisoning of this type “is an extreme case for the entire military, not just the academy or the Space Forces,” General Igor Puzanov, commander of the Leningrad Military District, told Interfax on Monday. The academy cancelled its contract with Business-Torg, the company that had recently won a tender to provide catering services to the academy, Kuznetsov said. Puzanov said the idea of having a private company cater a military installation was sound, but “in this case violations were allowed to occur.”

Elsewhere in the cityk, a market in northern Moscow was closed Monday after a Tajik worker there was diagnosed with typhoid fever, Interfax reported. The unnamed worker, who called emergency services on Sept. 28, was diagnosed Wednesday with the disease, which is transmitted by the ingestion of food or water contaminated with feces from an infected person and can be fatal. Twelve people who had come into contact with the man have also been hospitalized with similar symptoms, according to Moscow’s chief health inspector, Nikolai Filatov. Specialists checking the market Saturday found a number of health and safety violations, Filatov said. Evidence collected from the market was sent Monday to a city court, which may decide to close the market for the rest of the year, Filatov said, Interfax reported.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

The Terrible Trio, Looney Lemmings, and the Sickening Sixteen

The Angus Reid consultancy reports that in the most recent Levada Center polling, Kremlin lieutenant/lapdog Dmitry Medvedev has vaulted into first place as the preferred candidate among 1,600 Russian queried, recording 14% support (up from 10% in August, which was down from 10.3% in May). In the last poll, Medvedev was tied at 10% with crypto-fascist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who has now fallen to 8% and is in third place just behind Communist Gennady Zyuganov with 9%. Zhirinovsky is still ahead of the 7.3% support he recorded in May, while Zyuganov improved from 6.8% in May and 8% in August.

So in the 2008 presidential race, which will be by far the most important political event in Russia’s history, nearly one third of Russia’s voters (31%) are content to cast their ballots either for a communist, a fascist or the sycophant of a KGB spy. Isn’t that comforting?

But it gets worse, much worse. In the most recent poll, a nearly equal number of Russians (26%) say that they will not participate in the election at all, while a similar-sized group (27%) indicates that it has no idea who to vote for.

What can we say about the remaining 16% of the population? Well, that is the segment of the Russian popluation that is prepared to participate in the political process with some semblance of intelligence and without voting for a communist, fascist or KGB spy. Who are their preferences? In order, they are Sergei Ivanov (KGB sycophant #2), Vladimir Ryzhkov, Sergei Glazyev (crypto-Communist #2), Grigory Yavlinsky, Mikhail Kasyanov and Dmitry Rogizin (crypto-fascist #2). Among those who actually represent some sort of opposition to dictatorship and continued disaster in Russia, namely Ryzhkov, Yavlinsky and Kasyanov, none received as much as 5% support.

84% of the country, by contrast, seems to feel things are pretty much OK in Russia, certainly nothing to get worked up about. They’re not terribly concerned with an average monthly wage of $300, or with an average male lifespan below 60. They couldn’t care less, really, whether Russia annexes Georgia or fights a war in Ingushetia, and it certainly doesn’t matter to them if their government provokes the USA into a second cold war by sending weapons to arch American foes like Iran and Venezula. The obliteration of genuine news on television, the stranglehold on newspapers, the killing of journalists, these are all things of minor concern at best to your average Russian.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !