Russia just gets worse and worse. They've taken to using petty and zimbabwean tactics against opposition parties. I won't be surprised if Putin leaves at the end of his term, but someone who is basicly Putin Mk.2 will get in I expect. Killing journo's who disagree with them (let's face it, it's Putin behind this stuff) is just the tip of the iceberg in that country. Such a shame
There was a golden opportunity under Gorbachev, but Yeltsin pushed for too much too soon, and Western 'advisors' were only too eager to help with their Neo-con capitalist "insights" on how to bring Russia into the age of capitalist democracy. They screwed up bad. I mean, really bad. It's a bit like Iraq, but without the war... Now everyone wants back to the good ol' days of the USSR.
I think this is largely accepted as being true. But I think it's a bit harsh to judge anyone on it. When the markets opened up, the big corporations didn't need a written invitation to stick their oar in. And much was ruined at the hand of corrupt Russians - many government administrators sold off the family silver for a few kick-backs. Corruption was part of the way of life under Communism and with capitalist fever hitting the country, there was finally something worth being corrupt for. Yes, western democracies wanted to a get their slice of the pie, but equally, the EU and the US fed money into Russia on the back of reforms. Don't forget...there isn't a manual on how to open up a country to market forces and to introduce democracy. It's just too easy to moan about exploitative capitalists and corrupt natives - the fact is, it was a complex situation that no-one had any experience of, and in hindsight it's easy to point the finger. Remember, the population had entirely forgotten how to be free. It had been 3 generations since the Russian public had any kind of freedom at all. So when 'freedom' arrived many were slow to adapt - thus those quickest to react (not always the most savoury of people) made a killing but the masses were left dazed and bewildered. From what I can see, Putin isn't a communist. He's not trying to re-mould the country along some sort of socialist lines a la communism; he is a dictator - he's trying to inhibit democracy while controlling the press and suppressing dissenters. He's got no problems with individual ownership of property; he's just trying to make sure it's the right individuals who do the owning. He wants to control the group that is 'more equal than others'. In a sense, he's holding on to the corruption that came with communism without bothering with the idealism. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, he controls a helluva lot of oil. It's the oil that enable to country to float - without it they would be economically crippled. And the oil also gives him regional, and to a certain extent, global power. Hence Russia's stance in the Middle East - the more unstable the Middle East is, the more his oil matters. On the positive side, the shitty situation in the Middle East is distracting people from his trying-to-be-provocative re-start of Tu-95 flights over the Arctic/Atlantic. When all hell has come home to roost in Iraq, nobody gives two hoots about a few rusty 60 yr old empty bombers flying around the place.
Perhaps they should have consulted some psychologists. The assumptions with which they swooped in were laughably simplistic --bit like Iraq and Afghanistan. Hindsight my foot: they could have known.
I'm not quite so sure that if the governments had done anything different it would have affected the outcome. Besides, how do you know that they didn't consult psychologists? And economists... and industrialists...and lawyers... and diplomats...and others with experience of the people in the region? Sometimes things go fubar and there is not a damn thing you can do about them. It's just a lazy argument to say that it's the US and the EU's fault that Russia went pear-shaped post-glasnost. Life is complex. In order to accurately predict what would have happened would have taken a level of knowledge that is several orders of magnitude above that which we have. If it was *that* simple to run a country, we'd all be having a go. That said, given what we learnt in the break-up of the USSR, we should have learned lessons that would have proved useful in Iraq - namely, that nation-building is immensely complex concept and shouldn't be undertaken lightly.
If they did, they either talked to really bad psychologists, or more likely, they didn't listen. I mean, when Yeltzin replaced Gorbachev and started pusing for reforms, everyone with half a brain was saying that he was pushing for much too much change, much too fast. Like with Iraq, there were plenty of people who foresaw disaster, and could predict exactly how it was going to pan out. I did, and I was just barely out of University then. I do not put the blame just with the West (as you say, Russia was riddled with corruption) but it's an equally lazy argument to day that "life's just complex, you know?". I do not believe that it is exactly easy to run a country, but neither do I believe that it is rocket science, or that politicians have some sort of special insight into the workings of the world or the affairs of man that we mere mortals do not possess. They don't. Neither do they have access to special information that we don't --their advisors and intelligence organisations basically just make a living at telling them what they want to hear, and they ignore what does not fit their political 'vision' --which is often linked to very personal interests.
