Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My point was that a team of economists advised the Russians not to sell off commonly owned assets, and use the income from these to eliminate income and sales taxes, promoting enterprise. That they did and over 30 of them, including Nobel prize winners, signed the letter. Did you understand that? It was simple.
The Russians ignored these intelligent and experienced men and look at what happened. A total mess. Russia was in a great position to get right what other nations got hopelessly wrong, including the USA, UK, Germany, France, etc.
Were those thirty by any chance responsible for IMF\World Bank loans that were promised to Russian government in exchange for "reforms"?
If not, better start paying attention to what NJ is telling you;
Quote:
" The reformers that were in Yeltsins camp like Gaidar and Chubais were the ones pushing for full market economy reforms and were locked in a political fight with those who opposed these reforms who were primarily in the Parliament (the people who invited your "30 experts" to talk). The Russians set themselves on an official course to market reform. They chose to engage the IMF in these reforms and the IMF provided the funding because the other sources (the G-7) placed numerous conditions and demands on their assistance."
So if your "team of economists" were writing a letter to Gorbachev, Gorbachev was already not in charge of economic reforms. Yeltsin was.
And if it were people in parliament, who "invited your 30 experts to talk," you should be probably aware what happened to that parliament;
". . . . It is worth recalling that the Russian Congress of People’s Deputies had 1,041 members who had been elected in March, 1990, and whose terms were due to expire in 1995. Of these, about four hundred deputies belonged to the “irreconcilable opposition”; about two hundred could be classified as Yeltsin loyalists; and the rest were members in good standing of the boloto, “the swamp.” Anti-Yeltsin members could routinely garner five hundred or more votes, meaning that Yeltsin had no working majority. The Western press tended to accept uncritically the Kremlin’s propaganda that stressed Soviet-era nostalgia, rather than hyperinflationary depression and mass hardship, as the motive force behind the parliament’s challenge to the president.
Western journalists tended to show little sympathy for suggestions like that of Andrei Golovin of the Change-New Politics group that Yeltsin was an American puppet: “If you want to know what Yeltsin is going to do, ask the president of the United States. We happen to know that Yeltsin’s behavior is determined by the opinion of the G-7 and the instructions he gets from them.” . . .
An example of the demonization of the Russian opposition appeared in an op-ed piece in the New York Times written by Richard Pipes, who denied that economic hardship was the principal source of Russia’s unrest. “Contrary to conventional wisdom, the economy has not caused this crisis; . . . nobody is starving. . . ,” he wrote. In another passage, Pipes held that, “It is Boris Yeltsin who represents the nation. . . . He makes no secret that he is laying the groundwork for the imposition of emergency rule, which would enable him to continue political and economic reforms. His repeated warnings to this effect are no bluff. . . . The most helpful thing the West can do is to throw the full weight of its support behind Mr. Yeltsin. . . . It is a welcome sign that after initial hesitation, Washington seems to have realized that the success of democracy in Russia may require resort to methods that the West would find unacceptable. It should persist in this course and not allow itself to be misled by the putschists’ [sic] professions that they are fighting for the cause of representative government against a would-be dictator. . . .”
On February 28 [1993], German chancellor Helmut Kohl, on a visit to Japan, issued a plea for more aid to Russia. During his trip home, on March 3, Kohl stopped in Moscow for talks with Yeltsin. It was on this occasion that Yeltsin issued his first known request for international support for extraconstitiutional measures against the Russian opposition. He reportedly told Kohl “that he might dissolve the Russian parliament and assume emergency powers to defeat his political opponents,” and asked him “whether the United States and the other major industrialized nations would support him, if he were forced to take extraconstitutional action.” Kohl, who was dependent on Russian cooperation over the repatriation of the sizable Russian military forces still in his country, thereupon wrote letters to Clinton and other G-7 leaders informing them of Yeltsin’s request and urging full backing for him.
. . . . The New York Times quoted a “senior administration official” as commenting: [T]here is no way you can divorce Yeltsin as a personality from the state and future of reform in Russia.” On March 16, Yeltsin was joined in a joint press conference by French president Francois Mitterrand, who was visiting Moscow to express Western solidarity with Mitterrand. Mitterrand’s line was that if the West were forced to choose among the factions in Russia, it would choose the grouping most committed to the reform process. In these talks . . . according to French foreign minister Roland Dumas, “Yeltsin told President Mitterrand in Moscow . . . that he might have to take strong measures.”
By contrast, a former State Department official, Leslie Gelb . . . accurately predicted what the Washington bureaucracy would tend to do with this problem: “. . . facing hard sells, Washington officialdom generally resorts to wrapping its efforts in standard foreign policy baloney. . . . Friends are turned into gods and adversaries into devils.”
Yeltsin’s propensity to terminate the political impasse by going outside of the Russian constitution was encouraged by a series of interventions in Russia’s internal affairs by the International Monetary Fund and the U.S. Treasury. In August 1993, the IMF sponsored a conference in Moscow at which its officials criticized the budget bill currently under consideration by the Supreme Soviet. This bill included wide support in the parliament, but it included a budget deficit that exceeded what the IMF was willing to accept. In early September, U.S. Treasury Undersecretary [Lawrence] Summers testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He viewed the recent developments in Moscow with alarm: “The battle for economic reform in Russia has entered a new and critical phase in which many of Russia’s accomplishments on the economic front [sic] are being put at risk. The momentum for Russian reform must be invigorated and intensified to ensure sustained multilateral support.” The IMF, as later press leaks revealed, was “unhappy with Russia’s backtracking in reforms during the summer.” An IMF official said off the record, “Important measures in the budget field have not been taken, and credit discipline has been relaxed. This has put their reform program off track.”
Later, after the crackdown, [columnist] William Safire highlighted Yeltsin’s pre-approval from the West: “Last week, the confrontation between the reform executive and the red legislature [sic] came to a head over – of all things – the budget. Parliament proposed a foolhardy deficit [sic] of 25 percent of GNP, which it was ready to pass over Yeltsin’s veto. . . . With his Red Army and KGB and Dzherzhinsky [Division] ducks all in a row, and his personal relationship with Washington secure, the Russian leader – assured that no Clinton bet on him would be hedged – made his move. This is a calculated power play, long-planned and extra-constitutional, that is likely to put too much power into the hands of the Russian chief executive.”
Historians will be able to judge later from the archives whether the United States got more specific information from other sources and how far it gave Yeltsin advance approval for his actions. . . . On September 16, Yeltsin visited the Dzherzhinsky Division of the Interior Ministry at its base outside Moscow and was photographed brandishing a machine gun. . . . Western sources attributed the reappointment of [shock-therapy advocate Yegor] Gaidar to direct prodding from the IMF, saying that “Yeltsin acted under considerable pressure from the United States and international lending institutions like [the IMF].” . . .
On September 19, the IMF made public its decision to delay indefinitely the disbursement of the $1.5 billion loan to Russia. The IMF complained that Russia had not made promised budget cuts and had not reined in credit to industry. Accordingly, the money would not be forthcoming unless and until Russia “returned to the path of economic reform.” The World Bank also delayed a planned $600 million loan for Russia. A senior Clinton administration official said, We’re very encouraged by Gaidar’s return and by indications from the Russian government that they now see the need for a rapid turn toward stabilization.”
After visiting Moscow on September 14-15, Treasury Undersecretary Summers said that the Russian situation had improved since mid-summer: “The recent inflation has been too high, but I am encouraged by Russia’s official plans to get financial conditions back under control. It is crucial that these plans be implemented as a basis for economic growth in Russia and for the full effectiveness of Western support.”
The summers visit was critically important [as one commentator noted]: “Just before Yeltsin’s dissolution of the Congress September 21, the administration sent . . . Summers to Moscow to talk about the conditions for impending IMF aid. . . . Gaidar was immediately brought back as first deputy prime minister, and for the first time he really applied the shock therapy the IMF had been demanding. Bread prices were raised to the point where the daily minimum wage was roughly equal to the price of a loaf of bread in Moscow, and Gaidar promised a vigorous reduction of subsidies beginning January 1 of [1994].
Yeltsin was now prepared to launch his coup. . . . On September 21, Yeltsin decreed the dissolution of the Russian parliament.
. . . . Senator Robert Dole, interviewed on CNN on the day of the violence [October 3], suggested the United States should consider whether it was wise to urge countries like Russia to impose economic shock therapies that carried the danger of such a powerful political backlash. Meanwhile, Newsweek quoted U.S. officials as saying, “Washington . . . would have supported Yeltsin even if his response had been more violent than it was.”
- Peter Reddaway & Dmitri Glinski, “The Tragedy of Russia’s Reforms: Market Bolshevism Against Democracy,” pp. 392-425.
And there went Russian democracy up in smoke, and with that - all the wonderful "advise" of "30 leading specialists" with their "letter to Gorbachev."
And now, of course, we can continue discussion about what Russians should do about their "absence of freedom" and "rampant corruption" in the context of the "fall of the Soviet Union" of course.
Were those thirty by any chance responsible for IMF\World Bank loans that were promised to Russian government in exchange for "reforms"?
If not, better start paying attention to what NJ is telling you;
I have to?. I see connection with the US controlled IMF and an advising team of economists.
They are not my team of top economists (Nobel prize winners amongst them) and they did write a letter to Gorbachev. I never made it up and gave a link They were attempting to pull strings at all levels in Russia. To the point, Russia never took the advice taking the incorrect advice and failed terribly so.
What do you think the biggest contributes to the fall of the Soviet Union was?
I think it was doomed from the start, it was never a Union, but 14 nations being oppressed by Russia.
Estonians, Georgians, Armenians etc never saw themselves as Soviets but occupied by the Soviets. No country can last with those divisions.
Containment.
The creation of NATO and the European Union, the USA staying involved in world affairs, the recovery of Japan and then later the turn of China towards the United States and the western allies, all successfully contained the Soviet Union.
Unable to pursue a military or even some kind of a diplomatic power solution, the Soviet Union had to compete with Europe and much of North America and Asia through primarily economic means. But because of her Communist system she would be at a disadvantage. Gradually she would be falling further and further behind.
The creation of NATO and the European Union, the USA staying involved in world affairs, the recovery of Japan and then later the turn of China towards the United States and the western allies, all successfully contained the Soviet Union.
Wow! Is there anything else in the world you may have missed out?
Gradually she would be falling further and further behind.
Best thing she could have done. Rational for a dying horse that cannot run the race. Better to euthanize it and start anew. Ironically though Europe and the West are back to square one in its relationship to the Russian state after her turna-around and acquiesence to geopolitical realities. Why? With the start of sanctions, it can simply be seen as a another word for 'containment' for the non-geographical points of contact with the Russian state. The Crimean adventure can be seen as Russia wanting to keep her options open when it comes to the 'gates in their corral' and wants everyone to know it.
Best thing she could have done. Rational for a dying horse that cannot run the race. Better to euthanize it and start anew. Ironically though Europe and the West are back to square one in its relationship to the Russian state after her turna-around and acquiesence to geopolitical realities. Why?
Because Travric, because.
Because Russia provides "containment" for the West, as much as the West "contains" Russia.
And Russia will continue doing her job no matter under which guise - as Empire or as Soviet Union, or as Putin's Russia. It was meant to be so.
^
Yes that's our destinies. I know I huff and puff but I think we'll manage and scrimp through. Come to think of it we just may have to be on the same team in the big game coming up against those new kind of thinking people setting up a 'state' in the Middle East.
^
Yes that's our destinies. I know I huff and puff but I think we'll manage and scrimp through. Come to think of it we just may have to be on the same team in the big game coming up against those new kind of thinking people setting up a 'state' in the Middle East.
That's how it was supposed to be, but it's not going to happen this way.
Historically Russia was that column of the Christendom that was keeping the balance between it and the Islamic world ( after all you know that Russia was "the gate to the East," right?) And Russia was very consistent at keeping Islam contained, be that expulsion of radical muslims, or their integration in the Christian culture both during Tzarist and Soviet times. She became greatly disabled for fulfilling her duty in this respect after the nineties ( see the reasons earlier in the thread.) So the whole region of Central Asia and Caucasus are falling into embrace of Islam yet again, and that genie out of the bottle ( i.e. the Islamization on a global scale) is an inevitable result of it.
At that, Russians do not quite understand the nature of Islam in Saudi Arabia or Magreb countries - they used to deal with their own brand of Islam, the kind that existed on the former territories of ancient Persia- currently Central Asia\Caucasus (with Northern Caucasus as notable exception.) And these Islamic people and their culture differ from the Gulf countries, so currently Russians don't even quite understand what the French are going through, so they blame the West for the problem, looking for conspiracies. They project their own experience with Islam on the French, while it's not one and the same thing.
So look at the nineties again ( and what happened there) Travric.
There will be no "united front" between the West and Russia when it comes to Islam ( although that's how it was supposed to be.)
The Russians will side with Shia muslims on a bigger scale, while the Anglo-Saxons - with the Sunnies. (Actually, it has been happening already for some time, you probably simply didn't notice that.)
Yes, you may be right in the general attitude but I think Putin does believe 'terrorists' need to be stopped in any case since they affect order in both Russia, Europe and the U.S. Chaos is anathema to Putin.
I really don't expect a much kumbaya front, things aren't done like that. But on the hand I think if push came to shove there would be diplomacy underneath to help solve a crisis. Really it would be interesting if say if terrorists did their job here and found their way to eke into Russia. It would be an interesting situation I think. The phones would be ringing and the atmosphere would be hot hot hot.
That's how it was supposed to be, but it's not going to happen this way.
Historically Russia was that column of the Christendom that was keeping the balance between it and the Islamic world ( after all you know that Russia was "the gate to the East," right?) And Russia was very consistent at keeping Islam contained, be that expulsion of radical muslims, or their integration in the Christian culture both during Tzarist and Soviet times. She became greatly disabled for fulfilling her duty in this respect after the nineties ( see the reasons earlier in the thread.) So the whole region of Central Asia and Caucasus are falling into embrace of Islam yet again, and that genie out of the bottle ( i.e. the Islamization on a global scale) is an inevitable result of it.
At that, Russians do not quite understand the nature of Islam in Saudi Arabia or Magreb countries - they used to deal with their own brand of Islam, the kind that existed on the former territories of ancient Persia- currently Central Asia\Caucasus (with Northern Caucasus as notable exception.) And these Islamic people and their culture differ from the Gulf countries, so currently Russians don't even quite understand what the French are going through, so they blame the West for the problem, looking for conspiracies. They project their own experience with Islam on the French, while it's not one and the same thing.
So look at the nineties again ( and what happened there) Travric.
There will be no "united front" between the West and Russia when it comes to Islam ( although that's how it was supposed to be.)
The Russians will side with Shia muslims on a bigger scale, while the Anglo-Saxons - with the Sunnies. (Actually, it has been happening already for some time, you probably simply didn't notice that.)
Islam is intertwined into Russian society compared to France. Remember when the Mongols ruled Russia, the Mongol rulers of the Golden Horde embrace Islam as their state religion. When Russia overthrew the Mongol Rulers and slowly began to conquer the east and central Asia the Russians encountered more Muslims which they absorbed into their domain. Also Russia boreded Islamic States of Persia and the Ottoman Empire. Russian muslims are part of Russia and have russified last names, same can not be said for France. By Soviet times, the Soviet state professed Atheism. Churches, Mosques, Buddhist Temples and Jewish places of worships were closed down. Plenty of people in the Soviet Union deviated away from from religion. I read somwehre that muslims in Russia are the most moderate. The biggest problem for Russia is the Chechens who used religion of Islam to justifiy attacking Russia. I don't think Russia does not only side with Shia muslims. When Iran overthrew the Shah, The Soviets supported their weight with Saddam who is a sunni. Also Soviets also supported Egypt which is mostly sunni . Russia has more muslims than most Arab countries.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
