Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn October 2007, Russian human rights activist Natalya Estemirova wrote for us about the assassination of the crusading investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya.
Today, Estemirova was assassinated.
Her body, dumped near the capital city of Ingushetia, was discovered with two close-range bullet wounds in the head.
A woman who courageously investigated kidnappings, killings and other rights abuses in Chechnya, a single mother in her early 40s, a leading member of the esteemed human rights group Memorial, Estemirova received the first annual award from the international human rights group RAW in WAR (Reach all Women in War) in October 2007.
She understood, as she wrote in her harrowing story about Anna Politkovskaya's confrontation in Chechnya with a notorious police official responsible for the imprisonment, torture and murder of Chechen civilians that: "There are those with a vested interest in keeping the Russian Abu Ghraib forgotten--so that they can once again kidnap and torture. Our task, however, is to uncover their deeds and to fight them. Anna was at the forefront of this work for many years."
Natalya Estemirova was also at the forefront of that dangerous work, never ceasing to expose human rights abuses committed by the brutal leadership in Chechnya, where she lived and worked. Members of Memorial are now saying what they feared to say before, out of concern for Natalya's safety. They are accusing the 32-year old leader of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, of involvement in her assassination.
"Ramzan Kadyrov is personally responsible, not only because he leads Chechnya," said Oleg Orlov, Memorial's chairman. But, because "he personally threatened Natalya, told her that her hands would be covered in blood and that he destroys bad people." Kadyrov leveled these threats, according to Orlov, when he dismissed Estemirova as head of the Grozny Human Rights Public Council last year. Kadyrov has not replied to accusations that he was involved. What is clear is that the two bloody wars Moscow has fought with Chechnya, (from 1994 to 1996 and starting again in 1999) to halt the Muslim republic from seceding in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's collapse, have led to tens of thousands of civilian deaths, mass disappearances and killings, and rampant corruption. Putin installed Kadyrov as the republic's president in 1994 and his regime has been notorious for its corruption and human rights abuses.
For journalists, Russia has become --according to the International Union of Journalists--one of the most dangerous countries to work in. More than thirty journalists have been murdered for their work or have died under suspicious circumstances since Boris Yeltsin came to power; the pattern continues under Vladimir Putin and Dmitrii Medvedev. In only one case have the killers been convicted.
After learning of Estemirova's killing, President Medvedev issued a statement condemning the murder and ordered Russia's Investigative Committee to conduct a thorough probe. Kadyrov released a statement on Wednesday night saying he would "spare no expense: to find her killers.
The leading opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta has paid the heaviest price for its crusading investigations into high-level corruption, human rights violations, and brutality in Chechnya. Three of its leading reporters, including Anna Politkovskaya, have been murdered for their unflinching investigations. Most recently, 25-year old freelance reporter for Novaya, Anastasiya Baburova -- who was covering the rise of race-motivated crimes and Neo-Nazi groups -- was gunned down on a Moscow street. (There is no progress to report in her case.) And Estemirova was a frequent contributor to Noyava, reporting on extrajudicial killings, abductions and punitive arsons; after a wave of threats from the Chechen authorities, she wrote under a pseudonym. Despite the physical threats, assaults, and financial and political pressures, the newspaper's reporters and editors have continued to remain independent and publish crusading investigative reporting.
The issue of impunity for violent crimes against journalists is a matter of international importance. Deadly violence against journalists in Russia -- and in all countries, has led to self-censorship, leaving issues of global significance under reported or entirely uncovered.
Today we honor the courage of Natalya Estemirova. She tenaciously exposed human rights abuses and was a powerful voice for justice in her country.
Those who have so brutally stifled her voice must be brought to justice.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Those who have so brutally stifled her voice must be brought to justice.
•• unfortunately, with the u.s.'s recent deal with the russians regarding afghan supply routes, the impetus for justice will hardly come from the obamagarchs.
may god bless this woman's family..
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 12:20pm
"We may wish for democracy for (Russia), but to deny that lesser improvements are meaningful is a profound failure of analysis and compassion".
June 13, 1987 UK edition of "The Nation"
"Sovieticus" by Stephen F. Cohen
((Yep, I know the wrath this may bring on me!))
Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 12:39pm
Hey Mask,
Didn't I recently say to you on another thread that Putin was just another version of Stalin?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 1:06pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 1:06pm
I believe your premise was "the Commies never went away and were, in fact, back."
I never argued that the Russians were "democrats" (small "d")...just that your old Cold War mentality was out-dated.
I'm noting here the NEWFOUND desire for democracy in Russia by Ms vanden Heuvel and her husband, where they didn't care about Communist dictatorships in the old Cold War days, but suddenly DO care about Russian oligarchic ones today.
Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 1:49pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 12:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yep Frosted One - me thinks you are right. Sphere of Influence #1 - stay the hell out of my back yard.
Posted by OneVote at 07/15/2009 @ 1:56pm
Well, perhaps I can have some sympathy for our own journalists......who are cowed by Obama! I know, I know.....I'm looking a bit farther down the road as our Sate Media is still pretending to have some independence from THE administration.
As intermediate looks at our own MSM, just watch what's going on.....down in Hugo's S. American paradise. When one party rules, it just sorta of.....happens!
Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 2:57pm
When one party rules, it just sorta of.....happens! Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 2:57pm |
Shock and awe...HAPPens.
Abu Graib...HAPPens.
Rendition and torture...HAPPens.
Gitmo...HAPPens.
When one party believes they are above the law (Hi Mr. Cheney!)...this SH-T...happens.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/15/2009 @ 3:09pm
When one party rules, it just sorta of.....happens!
Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 2:57pm
kinda like america since reagan....
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 3:24pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 3:24pm
Frostwins Law?
I almost forgot about that. (It's a goodun)
Posted by Benchrest at 07/15/2009 @ 3:31pm
"More than thirty journalists have been murdered for their work or have died under suspicious circumstances since Boris Yeltsin came to power"
This contrasts with America as since the Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats have come to power ALL JOURNALISM except for the rightwing net sites and publications are having a giggley love affair with marxist ideology and practices perpetrated by the new administration!
Posted by BigPasture at 07/15/2009 @ 3:50pm
Poor RIO and HAPPY, they can't even muster up enough sanity to stay on-topic anymore.
Atleast Larry stuck to the subject.
Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 3:55pm
...stay on-topic...
Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 3:55pm
Maybe it's just me....can't speak for Rio...
But even as I drop in, as usual, I find little of interest. I have sympathis for TN.....it's much, much more difficult to defend your Party or criticize it when it's in full control. Us Cons know with real & fairly recent and direct experience....hehehehe! Now, we know what we have been missing during 2001-2006....fun!
The lack of interesting commentaries is OK....gives me time to look around other blogs' comments rather than just read the news or opinions...and cut-n-paste an occasional funny or points well-made.
Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 4:08pm
Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 4:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Golly Hap - you sound so condescending.
How about this?
Politkovskaya believed that Putin's FSB was behind bombing of apartments in Russia, blamed on 'Chechynan terrorists' by government authorities. So did Litvinenko as I recall.
Do you find similarity in tactics between Putin and FSB, and Bush/Cheney and the CIA?
Posted by OneVote at 07/15/2009 @ 4:21pm
So, does all this stuff mean that Reagan, as Supreme Maximum Leader, didn't "win" the Cold War? That the commies have just being "laying low"?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/15/2009 @ 4:29pm
How about this?
Posted by OneVote at 07/15/2009 @ 4:21pm
or this?
I don't give a rats' ass about Russian journalists digging into its own backyards! Russia is a big boy and in NO shape, way or fashion, will any whining by KvH or anybody else, have appreciable affects on the powers that be there......pretty much like China!
When was the last time some Russian journalists complained about our journos being too close to the powers-that-be here in the US or being harassed by anybody?
Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 4:49pm
Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 4:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Are you saying that Russian journalists have never been critical of our media as being beholden to corporate or political interests?
So KvH shouldn't bother? Recent Iranian political protests - do you suspect that "outside journalism" and "outside news reporting" played any part in fueling protests?
By way of example, highlighting the plight of others doesn't shed light on our own situation - such NSA spying of journalists and its attendant chilling effect and intimidation? Isn't this the first step in repression? What happened to the lawsuit that was filed on this spying? Didn't Obama move to dismiss based on "government secrets" defense? Whoops - there goes your right to privacy.
Hap - you need to put on your thinking cap.
Posted by OneVote at 07/15/2009 @ 5:44pm
you need to put on your thinking cap.
Posted by OneVote at 07/15/2009 @ 5:44pm
And YOU, need to put on your reading glasses....note I only said Russia and then China....countries that won't kowtow to KvH or anybody else' criticism.
Another word, they don't give a f*&k what anybody says or thinks....they are major powers, like us...and I, like most Americans not drunk on Obama-aid, don't give a flying f^%k what other countries' journos think of our press or us.
Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 6:05pm
Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 6:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Okay - Russia and China are exceptions because they are major powers. But of Iran - it isn't a superpower, and yet they (the rulers) aren't exactly responding to our criticism either. So, it is okay for our journalists to criticize countries that are less than superpowers at the journalistic level because you apparently see benefit in doing so? I am trying to understand your distinction.
Posted by OneVote at 07/15/2009 @ 7:34pm
Posted by OneVote at 07/15/2009 @ 5:44pm
actually,
the more chilling intimidation comes from the journalists' corporate bosses.
check out this story about journalistic intimidation:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/07/we-bring-fear
mexico is being destroyed by america's appetite for drugs and the ensuing stupidity of the "war" on drugs.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 8:01pm
'Thus, his caricature of Shevtsova as determined "to agree with the United States and condemn her own country on every single issue on which they have disagreed" is belied by her actual works. In the 2007 book Russia: Lost in Transition Shevtsova is often critical of U.S. policy, arguing, for instance, that the ham-fisted American approach to missile defense needlessly exacerbated tensions with Russia. In an article in The American Interest the same year, she defends democracy promotion efforts but urges the United States to reconsider unilateralism and the doctrine of preemption'
Weekly Standard - The Real Russia And realist illusions. by Cathy Young 07/01/2009 12:00:00 AM - Excerpt
Critics of Shevtsova accuse of her of catering to urban elites in Russia, while ignoring broader Russia.
Of course, the call for democratic reforms largely come from urban intelligentsia. Note that in Iran, nearly 65% of the population lives in urban areas.
Posted by OneVote at 07/15/2009 @ 8:03pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 8:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Great story Frosty - as predicted, the "war on drugs" in Mexico aided by US tax dollars and other support is a power play - largely supported by US to keep Calderon and his cronies (PAN) in the driver's seat. Unbelievable. A new Villa or Zapata should be arriving on the scene any day.
Posted by OneVote at 07/15/2009 @ 8:24pm
mexico is being destroyed by america's appetite for drugs and the ensuing stupidity of the "war" on drugs.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 8:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
All we need to do is legalize drugs - no more problem. The problem isn't America's appetite for drugs so much as it is that the illegal drug trade is so lucrative on both sides of the border, and both sides of the "law."
Posted by OneVote at 07/15/2009 @ 8:28pm
Vanden Heuvel is such a clueless hypocrite.
She goes on and on for years as to how Russia should negotiate with "the moderate Chechen rebels," and then, when Russia actually does so, only then does she discover the methods they typically employ. She goes on and on for years about how Russia is trying to crush Chechnya's independence, and then can't handle what happens when Russia gives Chechnya independence.
Kadyrov's government being composed entirely of former "moderate Chechen rebels," and Chechnya today being a de facto independent state that is part of Russia in name only.
Clueless hypocrisy.
Posted by Anstat_Das at 07/16/2009 @ 06:30am
Posted by BigPasture at 07/15/2009 @ 3:50pm |
"This contrasts with America as since the Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats have come to power ALL JOURNALISM except for the rightwing net sites and publications are having a giggley love affair with marxist ideology and practices perpetrated by the new administration!"
Tell it to the journos who couldn't do their jobs without Hayden listening into their interviews or reading their emails.
The only MSM that can't get enough mileage out of Socialism and Marxism is Fox Noise, Rio.
Your `tinfoil hat' apparently needs more Sn and less Al.
http://tinyurl.com/9uuqu
Posted by snowball777 at 07/16/2009 @ 08:19am
Posted by OneVote at 07/15/2009 @ 8:28pm |
Agreed...why attempt futile plans to eradicate what we can tax and grow right here in the US...and the same goes for Afghanistan's poppy fields.
More free markets, less black ones!
Posted by snowball777 at 07/16/2009 @ 08:25am
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A thriving Afghan opium crop earned farmers about $1 billion in 2007 and together with a resurgence in violence was hampering economic development, the International Monetary Fund said on Wednesday."
$1,000,000,000?
that's it?
jeez.
just buy the whole crop and bring the soldiers home.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2009 @ 08:47am
mexico is being destroyed by america's appetite for drugs and the ensuing stupidity of the "war" on drugs.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 8:01pm
Nonsense FZ. Mexico is being destroyed by the same thing that has plagued it since long before the drug trade...corruption. Corruption in govt including law enforcement and the military is such a part of the culture as to have become central to the life of the Mexican people. I have many friends in Mexico including some who are Federal Prosecutors. Even the best of them are not up to the level of credibility of most in govt here. There are bribery customs they do not even consider as being corrupt, just "the way things are done".
Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 09:26am
More free markets, less black ones!
Posted by snowball777 at 07/16/2009 @ 08:25am | ignore this person | warn this person
Our Treasury needs it. Problem is all the vested interests in "war on drugs" that seek its perpetuation - like the "war on terrorism."
Posted by OneVote at 07/16/2009 @ 09:29am
Nonsense FZ.
•• no, it's not.
Mexico is being destroyed by the same thing that has plagued it since long before the drug trade...corruption.
•• a gift from the spanish. and the u.s., of course. how else did the pri stay in power for so long? nonetheless, "plagued" is not the same as "destroyed".
Corruption in govt including law enforcement and the military is such a part of the culture as to have become central to the life of the Mexican people.
•• central like hemorrhoids. the people of mexico are fed up with corruption.
I have many friends in Mexico including some who are Federal Prosecutors. Even the best of them are not up to the level of credibility of most in govt here.
•• nope. here corruption is legal. just ask mr. geithner.
There are bribery customs they do not even consider as being corrupt, just "the way things are done".
•• mexico is being destroyed by the "war" on drugs. what's next -- a ban on catnip?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 09:26am
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2009 @ 10:01am
" The Licavolis, Bommaritos, Lucidos and Zerillis brought a Sicilian flavor to east side efforts, while the Tallman gang led the west side. The Purple Gang had the run of the town and were unmatched in ruthlessness. Corruption became commonplace and payoffs to police, politicians and judges were rampant. On the day of a raid it was not unusual for half the scheduled squad to call in sick. State and federal forces were slightly less corruptible, but there was so much illegal activity that it was impossible to stem the tide."
•••
" When the state police raided the Deutsches Haus at Mack and Maxwell, they arrested Detroit Mayor John Smith, Michigan Congressman Robert Clancy and Sheriff Edward Stein. From St. Clair Shores' Blossom Heath on Jefferson to Little Harry's downtown, to the Green Lantern Club in Ecorse, Detroit's most upstanding citizens fed the coffers of the gangs that were reaping huge fortunes from their appetite for alcohol."
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2009 @ 10:24am
There are bribery customs they do not even consider as being corrupt, just "the way things are done". Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 09:26am |
We call it "lobbying".
Posted by snowball777 at 07/16/2009 @ 1:32pm
Posted by snowball777 at 07/16/2009 @ 1:32pm |
My bro-in-law is from Mexico and used to compete with his schoolmates to see who could offer the smallest successful bribe.
The winner?
27 pesos and a pack of gum to avoid a parking violation.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/16/2009 @ 1:35pm
"We may wish for democracy for (Russia), but to deny that lesser improvements are meaningful is a profound failure of analysis and compassion".
June 13, 1987 UK edition of "The Nation"
Those were, "Mask," if I recall correctly, the days of Mikhail Gorbachev, glasnost, and perestroika. There was, if I recall correctly, no interethnic warfare in the Soviet Union at the time. Russia was moving in a progressive direction, unlike today.
No hypocrisy there.
That having been said, I do not see how the present conflict between Chechnya and Russia will end. This has "Northern Ireland" written all over it, or maybe even "Israel-slash-Palestine." We will wait decades, and thousands will die, before multi-generational war-weariness sets in and brings about some basis for peaceful co-existence, as has happened in Northern Ireland, but not in the Near East.
The nice thing about Soviet Communism was that it was so obviously -- and even-handedly -- dysfunctional that people of every ethnicity could unite against it. The bad thing about crudely ethnocentric, nationalist government is that its glaring incompetence and arrogant overuse of violence can always be blamed, with the help of the "patriotic" media, on the officially despised ethnic minorities. (It doesn't help that the pathetically diffuse, often indiscriminate, small-scale violence perpetrated by these same minorities is effectively demonized as "terrorism.") So ethnocentric nationalism is much more intractable than Soviet-style single-party (but multi-ethnic) government, and arguably a worse threat to multi-party democracy.
There is a reason why the democratic West allied itself with Stalin rather than with Hitler during the Second World War.
Posted by JakobFabian at 07/17/2009 @ 07:33am
Posted by JakobFabian at 07/17/2009 @ 07:33am
I figured SOMEBODY would have to step up and offer the apologia, Jake.
No, the point was that Ms vanden Heuvel and her husband were fine with "modest" democratic reform in the old Soviet Union, as long as the economic reform was at the forefront (that being a reining in of the apparatchiks and more trade to prop up the Soviet "social safety net" not more economic freedom.)
They were also just fine with their friend Mikhail remaining in power as long as possible and democratic reforms would have risked that.
BTW, your "nice thing" is simply the old "It's better to have a brutal dictatorship that everybody can hate, than resolve the old ethnic issues." You know, there MIGHT be other solutions than that....maybe?
Posted by Mask at 07/17/2009 @ 08:16am
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2009 @ 10:24am | ignore this person | warn this person
And bootlegger's sons rise to power...........................
Posted by OneVote at 07/17/2009 @ 09:12am
There are bribery customs they do not even consider as being corrupt, just "the way things are done". Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 09:26am |
We call it "lobbying".
Posted by snowball777 at 07/16/2009 @ 1:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Our Supreme Court calls it "free speech."
Posted by OneVote at 07/17/2009 @ 09:14am
There is a reason why the democratic West allied itself with Stalin rather than with Hitler during the Second World War.
Posted by JakobFabian at 07/17/2009 @ 07:33am | ignore this person | warn this person
Jako - you sure you aren't over-intellectualizing this a bit?
Posted by OneVote at 07/17/2009 @ 09:32am
BTW, your "nice thing" is simply the old "It's better to have a brutal dictatorship that everybody can hate, than resolve the old ethnic issues." You know, there MIGHT be other solutions than that....maybe?
Posted by Mask at 07/17/2009 @ 08:16am | ignore this person | warn this person
George Bush Junior thought that as well.
Posted by OneVote at 07/17/2009 @ 09:33am
Another word, they don't give a f*&k what anybody says or thinks....they are major powers, like us...and I, like most Americans not drunk on Obama-aid, don't give a flying f^%k what other countries' journos think of our press or us.
Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 6:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
'Inside the prayers -- held on a former soccer field covered with a roof -- some of the worshippers rubbed their eyes as tear gas from the scuffles outside drifted in during Rafsanjani's speech. They traded competing chants with some hard-liners in the congregation. When the hard-liners gave the traditional chant of "death to America," Mousavi supporters countered with "death to Russia" and "death to China."
It was a reference to Ahmadinejad's alliance with both countries. Ahmadinejad has come under criticism in Iran for not criticizing Beijing over Muslim deaths in China's western Xinjiang province.'
Police tear-gas Iran protesters during prayer By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 2 mins ago - Excerpt
Happy - your take on this?
Posted by OneVote at 07/17/2009 @ 09:49am
'I figured SOMEBODY would have to step up and offer the apologia, Jake.
No, the point was that Ms vanden Heuvel and her husband were fine with "modest" democratic reform in the old Soviet Union, as long as the economic reform was at the forefront (that being a reining in of the apparatchiks and more trade to prop up the Soviet "social safety net" not more economic freedom.)
They were also just fine with their friend Mikhail remaining in power as long as possible and democratic reforms would have risked that.'
So whom would you prefer as Russia's leader, "Mask"? Gorby or Putin? In fact, I'd go one further and challenge you to demonstrate that Boris Yeltsin was a better leader than Gorby.
But my main point was and is that the Gorbachev era, like our Civil Rights era, was a progressive one (i.e., things got better), whereas the present era in Russia is regressive (things are getting worse). This remains true even though the "baseline" of the state of freedom in Russia, both economic and political, is arguably higher now than it was in the late 1980s (just as the baseline of race relations during the reactionary era of Bush II was higher than it was during the more progressive 1960s). The task of critical observers like vanden Heuvel and Cohen remains the same: cheer for progress, boo for backsliding. You can claim that this "cheerleading" is weak and ineffectual, but you can't rightly claim that it's wrong or hypocritical.
'Jako - you sure you aren't over-intellectualizing this a bit?'
Guilty as charged, "OneVote." I believe you may be under-simplifying things yourself -- and I mean that as a compliment.
Posted by JakobFabian at 07/17/2009 @ 10:13am
Posted by JakobFabian at 07/17/2009 @ 10:13am | ignore this person | warn this person
Guilty as charged as well!
Let us not forget how many Jews and other ethnocentric minorities Stalin killed, and Stalin's 'secret' pact with Hitler (Ribbentrop-Molotov).
In the final analysis, it was Roosevelt's deal with the devil (Stalin) to vanquish the immediate and more pressing foe whom was ransacking Europe, placing U boats off our coast, and whom was allied imperial Japan, and whom was industrializing ethnic cleansing. Stalin surely was poised to enjoy benefits of Hitler's spoils of war, and in fact, Stalin was his handmaiden at times - such as the slaughter of Polish officers and intelligentsia in Eastern Poland.
The fact that Stalin became our immediate foe post war is telling.
Posted by OneVote at 07/17/2009 @ 10:47am
Posted by JakobFabian at 07/17/2009 @ 10:13am
Are those the ONLY choices the Russians get, Jake? A socialist dictator who talks sweet on "reform" or a plutocratic thug?
Do not these people who claim to care so much about Russia and the Russians....have some more options for those poor people???
Posted by Mask at 07/17/2009 @ 10:57am
An interesting study of WWII alliances is that of Finland. Hitler and Stalin's Non-Agression Pact of 1939 gave Soviets green light to invade Finland - See "The Winter War."
Finland, later, believing that Germany would win the war, allowed German invasion to repel Soviets - see "The Continuation War."
Later, after armistice with Soviets, Finland fought Nazi Germany - see "The Lapland War."
Exigency during time of war is quite "simple" and elemental.
Posted by OneVote at 07/17/2009 @ 11:04am
Posted by OneVote at 07/17/2009 @ 11:04am
Don't forget the Cold War role of the Finnish, as the "public relations face" for the Soviets where a direct USSR representative would have no credibility. Of course I guess if you've got the Russian bear breathing down your neck, you climb the tree and get the honey for him.
Posted by Mask at 07/17/2009 @ 11:47am
Of course I guess if you've got the Russian bear breathing down your neck, you climb the tree and get the honey for him.
Posted by Mask at 07/17/2009 @ 11:47am | ignore this person | warn this person
And you may even become 'The Bear' as the Karelians know so well.
The difference between west and east in bordering Baltic states can be experienced in less than a day's drive. It is palpable.
Posted by OneVote at 07/17/2009 @ 1:02pm
Posted by OneVote at 07/17/2009 @ 1:02pm
Well, regardless, my original point was that some who are demanding change with a capitalist thuggery in charge in Russia.....were perfectly comfortable with a socialist one being in charge.
And I don't buy into the "Gorbachev Mythos" of the Hard Left, anymore than I buy into the "Reagan Mythos" of the Right. Reagan raised taxes and increased the size of the government and the deficit; yet we're told he's the "role model of conservatism".....Gorbachev wanted nothing more than more washers and microwaves for the citizens, but the CP still in charge; yet he now has his friends like the Cohen/Vanden Heuvels tell us he was "on the verge" of becoming a Russian Lincoln.
Posted by Mask at 07/17/2009 @ 1:20pm
Police tear-gas Iran protesters during prayer By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 2 mins ago - Excerpt
Happy - your take on this?
Posted by OneVote at 07/17/2009 @ 09:49am
My "take" is that anybody would be better than AhmaDineinYourJeans....like the Left's 8-yrs' worth of "anybody would be better than Bush/cheney" leading to the rapidly forming disaster that is Obama!
This being my "take", reinforced by the macro factors I pasted in that sanctions won't be effective (nor universal due to China's sure-veto), the only way we can have a chance to alter Iran's trajectory, is to help Ahmad into retirement. That means, we provide NO support or recognition of any kind of to the present regime until the dust settles....that is, either till AhmaDineinYourJeans crushes the opposition or he resigns.
That will also help Israel to think clearly of its own, more vital self-interests w/out the US/Magic trying to butter up to Ahmad.
Posted by Happy at 07/17/2009 @ 2:53pm
Posted by Mask at 07/17/2009 @ 1:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes - that is why he makes his home in New York.
Consider that Gorbachev was the one who started pulling troops from Afghanistan, fully cognizant of the crumbling and bankrupt empire.
Those who must change are different from those who choose change. Point well taken.
Posted by OneVote at 07/17/2009 @ 2:53pm
Posted by Happy at 07/17/2009 @ 2:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Hap - is your point that we shouldn't critcize Russia and China directly, but indirectly via a Cold War like campaign directed at those states that may be up for grabs - like Iran? Will Putin/Medvedev consider this to be stepping on their toes, especially in light of pledges of Russian support in the war on Afghanistan?
Posted by OneVote at 07/17/2009 @ 2:57pm
My thoughts and prayers go out to Natalya Estemirova's family, but they know, as well as most Russians, that their assailants will never be brought to justice. These killings have little to do with politics between the US and Russia. This has been going on since newspapers were "freed" after the country officially changed. It mostly started with the killing of Moskovsky Komsomolets editors Pavel Gusev in 1994 and then Kalinovsky a few years later. While it's easy to blame Putin for this fearful environment, let's not forget it was Yeltsin's tank attack on the Federation Council that killed dozens of enterprising journalists. There is or was a memorial behind that building, and if you visit Moscow you should stop by it.
Posted by kyeshinka at 07/17/2009 @ 3:43pm
Hap - is your point that we shouldn't critcize Russia and China directly, but indirectly via a Cold War like campaign directed at those states that may be up for grabs - like Iran? Will Putin/Medvedev consider this to be stepping on their toes, especially in light of pledges of Russian support in the war on Afghanistan?
Posted by OneVote at 07/17/2009 @ 2:57pm
If you'd go back up and read my first post on thread, it did not at all, say for KvH NOT to criticize Russia: I just acknowledged the reality that "When one party rules, it just sorta of.....happens!"
"Indirect" Cold/Warm/Hot campaigns "directed at those states that may be up for grabs - like Iran" are also facts of life and THAT, has been going on for thousands of years.
Remember something about the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Korean War, Taiwan's split from commie China? None of those began w/Bush, btw!
Posted by Happy at 07/17/2009 @ 4:39pm
"We may wish for democracy for (Russia), but to deny that lesser improvements are meaningful is a profound failure of analysis and compassion".
Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 12:39pm
Substitute any American domestic issue for "democracy" in the above, and one could imagine Mask writing it himself.
Mask knows I'm no fan of Gorbachev and sure, there was another alternative - a political revolution overthrowing the bureaucracy, including Gorby, that preserved the socialized basis of the economy rather than restoring capitalism - but as a spokesman for moderation and moving only as far as the political reality of the day allows in this country, his criticism of others for being willing to accept "modest" democratic reform in the face of a political, economic and military establishment largely hostile to even that - and with a proven willingness to send in the tanks to shut down just such "modest" reform - is puzzling, if not downright smug and hypocritical.
Posted by cka2nd at 07/17/2009 @ 10:17pm
...but as a spokesman for moderation and moving only as far as the political reality of the day allows in this country, his criticism of others for being willing to accept "modest" democratic reform in the face of a political, economic and military establishment largely hostile to even that - and with a proven willingness to send in the tanks to shut down just such "modest" reform - is puzzling, if not downright smug and hypocritical.
Posted by cka2nd at 07/17/2009 @ 10:17pm
Posted by Malcontent at 07/18/2009 @ 08:16am
I hope that the courage of the Russian journalists who are willing to give their lives to get the truth out is an inspiration to our own reporters.
You would think that the toadies at Fox News would just shut up and die of shame.
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/18/2009 @ 08:32am
Posted by cdlepthien at 07/18/2009 @ 08:32am |
They'd have to actually BE journalists to see the analogy; no such luck in Rupertlandia.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/18/2009 @ 09:00am
Evidently the Russian political regime does not want to take any criticism from the inside because they feel it would debilitate it. And they are right to feel fear.
On the other side, a majority of the Russian public wants a strong and stable regime with this kind of ultra-nationalistic features that seem to fulfill their dream of a great nation being real in the world.
I am guessing that for Russia's neurosis of security and greatness, any neighboring nation that poses a strongly different point of view is a threat and if it is a Muslim nation, then it is anathema since it will bring about religious extremism. I would bet that the US will largely feel the very same way if instead of Mexico, we had as a neighbor, say, Saudi Arabia.
In this environment, the position of a journalist that wants to fulfill its duties - that is, tell his or her version of the truth - is very precarious. The repression of the regime does not hold on any standard the value of life and has come therefore to very dangerous extremes.
Unfortunately, there is not too much that foreign countries can do about this. Rather, it is the sum of the intelligentsia, the Russian Orthodox Church, the educated youth, and the people in general that love democracy and participate actively in politics in their small communities, that will save Russia in the long term. Where are they? Very sadly some dead, some quasi-dead as silent, but hundreds and thousands ought to come to action. Better work with them a better political 3rd way isn't it Mr. Putin?
Outside Russia I don't know of very too much journalists like KVH that take these situations. Even though we cannot do very much, still the world can not act as if these crimes were not ever perpetrated.
Posted by Frank42 at 07/18/2009 @ 10:36pm
There are bribery customs they do not even consider as being corrupt, just "the way things are done". Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 09:26am |
We call it "lobbying". Posted by snowball777 at 07/16/2009 @ 1:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Our Supreme Court calls it "free speech." Posted by OneVote at 07/17/2009 @ 09:14am |
It certainly qualifies as "imminent lawless action", in my book.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/19/2009 @ 10:15am
Remember something about the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Korean War, Taiwan's split from commie China? None of those began w/Bush, btw!
Posted by Happy at 07/17/2009 @ 4:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Cuba is a study in itself.
So close - and yet so far.
Perhaps there are similarities between Castro and Putin/Medvedev in the eyes of the people?
We were never successful in inspiring overthrow of Castro, despite all the bad press. Our assassination plots failed as well due to loyalty of Castro's secret service. Was this (in part at least) because the true source of that bad press was perceived by Cubans under Castro as an effort to restore the Spanish aristocracy to power? Was it ever really about democracy, or was it really about control of resources?
I submit that much of the same calculus is true for the Russian people as well. Democracy is an ideal corrupted by men, as is Marxism. For the people, perhaps it boils down to 'better the mafia you know, than the one you don't.' The failings of the Bolshevik Revolution have not been forgotten, and unfulfilled promises of a better day, when stripped of their labels, are just that. It is good to remember definitions, and ulterior motives or misguided motives. Really, these are class struggles rather than struggles of 'the people.'
Bourgeoisie is a classification used in analyzing human societies to describe a social class of people. Historically, the bourgeoisie comes from the middle or merchant classes of the Middle Ages, whose status or power came from employment, education, and wealth, as distinguished from those whose power came from being born into an aristocratic family of land owners. In modern times, it is the class owning the means for producing wealth. Source: Wiki
Posted by OneVote at 07/19/2009 @ 10:54am
It certainly qualifies as "imminent lawless action", in my book.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/19/2009 @ 10:15am | ignore this person | warn this person
And under the curtain of "free speech" and the constitution as well. It is in fact legalized bribery of elected officials. Institutionalized "Pay to Play." And, curtailment of a constitional right of an individual or group is certainly within the ambit of powers of The Supreme Court, when the greater good is at stake. Happens all the time - but of course, not in this particular case - not yet - maybe never.
Posted by OneVote at 07/19/2009 @ 11:05am
Posted by OneVote at 07/19/2009 @ 11:05am |
It may be awhile before we can connect the dots between Swiftboating and the proverbial 'crowded theatre', but McCain-Feingold was one small step in the right direction.
I'm afraid the neutering of campaign reform has basically turned us into a 'Playboys only need apply' nation (Perot, Forbes, Romney, McCain, etc) which does not serve the people well at all; King George is laughing at the irony from his grave.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/19/2009 @ 11:18am
King George is laughing at the irony from his grave.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/19/2009 @ 11:18am | ignore this person | warn this person
Indeed!
This perversion of 'one man - one vote' guarantees that we will never live up to the ideals and principles. Funny that "we" have embraced so much of what WE sought to cast off.
Posted by OneVote at 07/19/2009 @ 12:10pm
Of course I guess if you've got the Russian bear breathing down your neck, you climb the tree and get the honey for him.
Posted by Mask at 07/17/2009 @ 11:47am | ignore this person | warn this person
Interesting side note to Finlandization, and an apparent nod by you that this may be more deeply rooted in necessity, as opposed to preference, is a historical tidbit
'Civil servants, politicians and journalists accepted the practice that, if they cared about their careers, they did not talk about injustices such as the Soviets' assaults leading to the Winter War, or contemporary Soviet political repressions, such as the fate of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Such discussions were sanitized in the name of maintaining a working relationship between Finland and the Soviet Union.[citation needed]
Only after the ascendancy of Mikhail Gorbachev to Soviet leadership in 1985 did mass media in Finland gradually begin to criticize the Soviet Union more...'
Source: Wiki
For what it is worth, and 'causation' perhaps had more to do with unveiling of the crumbling USSR than nobility of Gorby. But, as you have mentioned, he does have his admiration society that will claim that he welcomed relaxation of censorship and more freedom of and exchange of information and dialogue.
Posted by OneVote at 07/19/2009 @ 12:24pm
See Glasnost, but also see quote of Gorbachev on Jan. 8, 1988 at conference of media and arts wherein he stated "The Soviet Press is not a private shop."
Censorhip in Soviet Literature 1917-1991, Herman Emolaev, Chap.6, pg. 223.
In other words - "The Party" still ultimately called the shots, and that reformation was "common cause."
Posted by OneVote at 07/19/2009 @ 4:42pm