media control...

[Dr_Woland]

Dobar Den, Mr Ungaro!

Gusinsky's Media-Most company are generally regarded as being the champions of the free press and media in Russia. It is they, and only they, who dared to question military strategy in Chechnya, and who have questioned some other Kremlin policies under both Yel'tsin and Putin (notably they kept the "Nikitin" case in the limelight - the former Naval Officer who blew the whistle on nuclear waste from Russian submarines... and other cases). He honestly does not bear the slightest comparison to Mr Limbaugh, who can only be described fairly as reactionary assh*le. NTV is held in high regard by most Russian intellectuals, academics, and business-people as the ONLY channel on which you might get something other than what the Kremlin would like you to believe. If there is someone who DOES correspond to Mr Limbaugh, it's Boris Berezovsky.

I see what you are saying about the power of the advertising sponsor, for sure, and you could very well be right in some respects. However, I think the difference is this....
Advertisers are mostly business-people, right? Now in the USA, although there are differences between Republicans and Democrats, neither party would want to try to close-down private businesses or penalise them, or nationalise industries? But in Russia, the Kremlin might try to do exactly that - there is no proof beyond fine words, that Putin has any intention of assisting the development of the private sector.

So Gusinsky is not just a guy who owns a tv channel and some newspapers. He is a champion of private enterprise, and of democracy, and advertisers know that if he goes down, it's a sign that the walls are going to start closing-in on all of them. So they will support him, as far as they dare.

It's interesting that despite Nonson's suggestions that they all ought to abandon Gusinsky to the wolves, large numbers of business leaders came out to support him publicly, despite the difficulties this might cause for them with the Kremlin.

Nonson, you're fundamentally wrong. The Government exists to serve the country. The country doesn't exist to serve the Government. And when the Government moves against the country's interests, and instead acts in their own self-interests, they must be OPPOSED.

Dr W.

[Nonson]

Ancient Simplicity: G-d creates man. Man creates Politics. Man with Politics creates State. Man/State conducts fundamental actions to sate ambition; soothe inner fears; and enhance self-interest. Not even Plato and Socrates though differently. Who serves whom? What serve what? The obviousness of obviousness can sometimes be too damn obvious.

[Dr_Woland]

>> Man with Politics creates State. Man/State conducts fundamental actions to sate ambition; soothe inner fears; and enhance self-interest. Not even Plato and Socrates though differently. <<

"Then, I said, let us begin and create in idea a State; and yet the true creator is necessity, who is the mother of invention."
"Of course, he replied".

Socrates & Adeimantus, REPUBLIC II (Plato).

"The Guardians........ will have to be watched at every age, in order that we may see whether they preserve their resolution, and never, ever, under the influence of either force or enchantment, forget or cast off their duty to the State".

Republic III.

"But when the guardians of the State are only seemingly and not real guardians, then see how they turn the State upside-down".

Republic IV

"For do there not exist such badly-ordered states, in which citizens are forbidden under pain of death to alter the constitution; and yet he who most sweetly courts those who live under such a regime ans indulges them and fawns upon them and is skilful in anticipating their desires - do these States not resemble those persons I formerly described?"

Republic IV

"How then, does a protector change into a tyrant?".....
"Having a mob entirely at his disposal, he is not restrained from shedding the blood of kinsmen; by the favourite method of false accusation he brings them into court and murders them, making the life of a man disappear, with his unholy tongue and lips tasting the blood of his fellow citizen; some he kills and others he banishes, at the same time hinting at the abolition of debts and the partition of lands; and after this, what will be his destiny? Must he not either perish at the hands of his enemies, or from being man, become a wolf - that is - a tyrant?!"
....
"And if they are unable to expel him, or get him condemned to death by public accusation, they conspire to assassinate him."
"That is the usual way."
"Then comes the famous request for a bodyguard..."
......
"And if any of them are suspected by him of having notions of freedom, and of resistance to his authority, he will have a good pretext for destroying them, by putting them at the mercy of the enemy; and for all those reasons, he must ever be getting-up a war.

REPUBLIC VIII

[Just remember - Putin handed NTV's reporter in Chechnya over to the Chechen Militia, in exchange for Russian hostages.]


Dr W.

Greetings Dr. Woland,
It seems to me that during the PRIVATISATION
PROCESS, MOTHER RUSSIA was stolen blind by
people close to BORIS THE DRUNK. Was this covered in the press? Is it covered now?
The Swiss prosecutors are going to name
the daughter of BORIS THE DRUNK and some of his closest friends for having participated in a kickback program with a Swiss construction company. Do the Russians know this? Any talk of recovering the stolen
wealth? Are the Russians willing to forget
all this and just get on with the new system?
You seem to have a good understanding for
what is going on. I would be pleased to hear your thoughts. If you prefer you can E-Mail
me at heibill@aol.com
Good Luck
Ps. I downloaded and printed your Travel Guide. Very nice. Please put bloddy numbers on the pages.

[Dr_Woland]

Good Evening, Mr Ungaro!

You've put your finger on a nerve :-) Just today, there has been a flurry of activity of exactly the kind you are talking about.

Vladimir Potanin, whom some believe the wealthiest of the "oligarchs", has appealed to Putin for his help.

It seems that prosecutors are preparing a case against him, about irregularities in the way in which he became the head of Norilsk Metal (the largest and most profitable metals business in Russia). Unusually, the privatisation wasn't paid for in cash, but in a "shares for loans" scheme where the loans were mysteriously left unpaid, then bought by a debts-broker and liquidated for a tiny payment made by someone close to Potanin. This, at least, is the allegation.

Many people believe that a large number of privatisations were crooked deals. I hate to even give him air-space, but Zhirinovsky is demanding a full investigation of the way in which the State's riches were sold to close friends of "The Family" (as the Yeltsin entourage were known) for a fraction of their real value. Lots of people would like to know how Boris Berezovsky (second-hand car dealer) became Boris Berezovsky (owner of Russia's largest tv company), and what was the role of George Soros in that deal?

The announcement of the charges against Potanin (who enjoys little popularity with the public on account of his excessive lifestyle, whilst his workers endure the worst conditions in Eurasia, with a male life expectancy of 45 in freezing mines in the Arctic circle) throws up possibility of a review of some, many, or all of the privatisations conducted under the Yeltsin administration. They further call into question the WESTERN companies who supervised these allegedly crooked privatisations - did they take kickbacks for ensuring an undervalued sale to a Yeltsin crony?

Hakamada, for whom I usually have a lot of time, has said that this could be "the beginning of the end", and would bring economic life in Russia to a catastrophic standstill if privatisations are reversed.

Let's see if her predictions are well-founded - Putin vowed to "get" the oligarchs throughout his election campaign. Gusinsky was his first. Potanin seems to be second. But let us also see if he will "bite the hand which feeds him", and "get" Boris Berezovsky? I think not.

Dr W.

PS - sorry about the page numbers :-)

Greetings Dr. Woland,
You write great stuff. You should be a journalist. Most interesting. I would also like to know how the Russians feel towards
Borris The Drunk. I think that he was hand picked by President Bush to replace Gorbachev
who was not moving fast enough to please the
Americans. Not only was he hand picked, but he was promised support incase the Russian people would object to the elimination of the C.C.C.P. The way I see it, TWENTY MILLION PEOPLE did not die in the Great
Patriotic War to let Borris The Drunk reward his friends with the wealth of the nation.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a friend of
COMMUNISM. I support the move towards democratisation. I just think that Borris was the wrong person and he used the wrong methods. Actually, I think that he was a CLOWN, a pitiful clown. I loved GORBY and his wife. I think the whole world loved them.
That was another reason why Gorby had to go. An EVIL EMPIRE whos leader is loved by the whole world, is not a good situation for some. A half-wit drunk is much preferred.
How do you see it?
Good Luck.

[Straighterway]

Dear Mr. Ungaro,

u asked what Russians think. well, a loooooooot of Russians would agree with u about Yeltsin. like when u call him "Boris the Drunk" they would go 'i couldn't have put it better myself'.

can u imagine how proud we Russians felt when he came 2 international meetings in a not-so-sober state?

yet, there's another point of view, which comes from a Russian as well, and u might be interested in hearing it.

this is from an article by Leonid Volkov, a former deputy of the RF, found at ng.ru, the June 10 release. under the politics section; heading- "Ne mogu molchat'".

translated, unfortunately, by me, who has no experience whatsoever in such things, so please excuse errors and lack of precision.


--...Yeltsin will be judged and justified by history, like Khruschev now is. Maybe he should have resigned in 1996, but who would then be left in power? Zyuganov? This man took up an incredibly heavy burden on himself, and bore it on his sore shoulders for almost 10 years. They say it's the desire of power?...Every man has his ambitions for power... But he can also have a mission. And Yeltsin had one.

Yes, Yeltsin couldn't hang in there all the way. But who could have born all of that idiocy and [don't know the word "podlost"-could u help me out here, Dr. W.?]. Still, he gave Russia a real constitution and real freedom. And now, by pouring dirt on Yeltsin, Russians, including the Russian intelectuals, seem to be in a rush to renounce those priceless gifts.

Doubtless, there are tonnes of accusations on Yeltsin's account. Only, accusations are one thing, and lies are another. Lies or, politely speaking, "one-sided presentation of facts". Where do those lies, that became international, come from? Now BBC...portrays things like if,for example, in october 1993, the white house wasn't full of Barkashov's and Zhirinovsky's supporters, like if there was no armed rebellion lead by their comrade Makashov with him openning fire on the city hall, etc... They[ the BBC] made it look like "Tsar Boris" just opened fire on the "parlament" that he displeased him. And they say "parlament",while it was a building where there really were only less than a hundred out of the 1000 deputies, the most desperate fans of Khasbulatov and Rutskoy...

Russians really do have a strange perception of history. Ivan Grozny, Peter the Great, Stalin the Great and Wise- all those are our heroes. These are easily forgiven for their monstruous historical sins, oceans of blood and humiliation, crimes and poverty. While peaceful reformers-Tsar Alexander II, Khruschev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin-are viewed differently. Here's a paradox: these 'simple' reformers proved capable, at some point, to turn the country towards something normal and human, and to stand up against the fearful heritage of the system created by the dictators.--