media control...

Greetings Straightaway,
I accept all that. You have not addressed
my concern about Yeltsin being just a Trojan Horse for those who wanted to plunder the
the wealth of Mother Russia. Some, like myself think that he was selected, installed
and supported by Americans who had a lot to gain from having somebody in power whom they
have in their pocket. How do you see it?

[Dr_Woland]

Good Evening, Mr Ungaro!

I only *read* great stuff - if you get lots of quality information, it's easier to come to some kind of conclusion :-)

I'm a Brit, but the Russians I mix with seem fairly united about their feelings towards Yel'tsin - a profound lack of personal respect. And that, in part, is the reason behind the support which Putin receives, I think - it's the comparative which is important. You called him "Boris the Drunk", and maybe with good reason for the name.... all Russians can remember the national humiliation he caused by being drunk in public at international events etc. Putin is serious, smartly-dressed, speaks little and cautiously. Whatever his policies, he has the bearing of a professional and able man.

I am always keen for a good conspiracy theory, you know <g>, but I doubt that Bush was instrumental in appointing Yel'tsin :-) Yel'tsin was always an ambitious man, and rather like the French political system, being Mayor of the capital city has always been a quick "short-cut" to the higher levels of political power (Yuri Luzhkov had the same idea...). I don't know a great deal about USA politics, but the little I know indicates to me that "Federal" institutions are regarded with enormous distrust in the States. Not so in Russia, power is centralised completely and totally on the Kremlin, and so the Moscow Mayoralty is interwoven into that power structure, even though it should not be (by Constitution, I mean).

I honestly think that America, and Capitol Hill especially, was actually surprised and startled by the rise of Yel'tsin... because they had invested so much of their confidence in that nice Mr Gorbachev.

It's a difficult position for any foreign power which so openly supports a regime in another country - what do you do if you want to have good relations with the new guy, who just kicked your guy out?? :-)

So for sure, just as soon as they could take Gorby's photo down off the wall, the Bush administration was jumping into bed with the guy who pushed Gorbachev's career off the political cliff. (It ought to be said that no matter how much they loved Gorby, he never ended the USSR, he never ceased to be Gen. Sec. of the Communist party, and he never held Elections of any kind - except the Communist kind, of course! So Bush HAD to love Yel'tsin, who did all of the things Gorby never delivered-on).

It's one of those great unknown "WHAT IF...?" questions of history... would Gorbachev have REALLY dismantled Communism, despite being it's chief official in the USSR? He certainly made no moves towards doing so. of course, some would say that such a radical move had to be carefully and cautiously planned. But the majority of Russians were already thinking "I don't want a free country for my children only, I want it for ME." Patience was short, expectations great.

Also... Gorby made many mistakes. If he had maybe allowed Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania to secede from the USSR (as they had the right to do, under the Soviet Constitution), he might have saved things a bit. However, instead, the man whom the West loved as a "friend", sent armed troops to fire on peaceful protestors in Lithuania... a perverse reversal of the events which prompted Communist Revolution in the first place!

I think that what Russian people wanted in Gorby, and in Yel'tsin, and now in Putin, is a man who will PUT THE COUNTRY'S INTERESTS FIRST.

Gorby's mistake was to equate the country's interest with the Party's interest (as an idealogue, he could not make the mental leap which, for example Milosevic did - what do you think of this analogy, I mean no offence?!) and separate country from Party.

Yeltsin's mistake was allow the country's interest to slip behind those of his close circle - his daughter, Berezovsky, Potanin, and others.

Maybe this is why Putin is so much liked - because unlike Yel'tsin and Gorbachev, who never worked in their entire lives except marking "x" in the right place, as politicians.... Putin has an established career as a loyal patriot of his country, an efficient and successful spy on behalf of Russia, prepared to risk his own life for his country?

In a sad way, I am sorry for Yel'tsin. As Mayor of Moscow, he could have worked for 7-8 more years, got a huge pension, a big apartment at Yevpatoria overlooking the sea, and had a happy retirement. What he did, he did for his country - since he had no financial benefit from it at all. He did many things wrong, he promoted the wrong people, he behaved poorly. But remembering that "the knives are out for anyone" in Russian politics, no matter how much they tried, they never found any kind of personal gain made by him. Probably, he lost 10 years of his future life from the strain of power. He freed Russia from Communism, he dismantled the USSR, and he resigned from power when he realised he was no longer wanted. I hope history is kinder to him than the newspapers of his own times.

Purely my personal opinions!! :-)

Dr W.

[Dr_Woland]

"some enchanted eve-lyn...."

dobry tebe vecher, gospoja straighterway!

I promise I wrote my reply to Mr Ungaro, before reading yours!! Yours is somewhat more scholarly, mine is merely a concoction of what I've heard Russians saying, in the hope of giving Mr U. a bit of feedback from "Krasnaya Ulitsa, Chelyabinsk" :-)

What that article says is very true... had Yeltsin NOT been there, who knows what wolves and foxes might have tried to sieze power? Not only Zyuganov... before he became a kind of practical-joker, at one time Vladimir Wolfovich was seriously considered a threat to Yel'tsin. Can you imagine, what a weak Kremlin would have led to then?? President Zhirinovsky? What a terrible thought! :-(

"podlost'" - I see what you mean, maybe "blows below the belt" gets the concept?

>> 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.<<

I especially like this... I had never really thought of it this way, so it was like having a "door opened for me" :-))

Dr W.

[Dr_Woland]

>> selected, installed
and supported by Americans who had a lot to gain from having somebody in power whom they
have in their pocket <<

Mr Ungaro, good evening once again!

Well, it was straighterway you were asking, but my own reaction is.... well, they got very poor value for their money, if that was really the case!!

I think all large countries "court" each other - it is in their interests to do so, and you can get "much more with the carrot, than with the stick".

I wouldn't really consider that the USA got a lot out of Yeltsin. American corporations did poorly in Russia, compared to other countries (Japan, S. Korea, Germany, Eire).
The main US benefit was more indirect, the so-called "peace dividend". Even so, with Russia in bankruptcy and unable to feed its people, reduced military spending was not really a difficult thing to negotiate at the time.

What I would really say is that the REAL winners from the Yeltsin regime were Russian businessmen, who were able to buy fabulously profitable resources (Gazprom, Lukoil, Noril'sk Nickel, Aeroflot, ORT....) for fractions of their real value.

Now, you could look BEHIND those men to see if they, in turn, were merely puppets for US corporations or individuals? But proving it would be hard - most Russians have no idea if the rumours are true, and in most cases, it seems likely that someone like Vladimir Potanin needs no sugar-daddy in Santa Barbara to hold his hand!! However, no-one knows for sure exactly what is the relationship between Boris Berezovsky and George Soros, or indeed between BB and Rupert Murdoch.

Dr W.

Greetings Dr. Woland,
I haver read a lot stuff about the above topic, but nothing as clear and un-biased as your posting. I am once again hopeful that
Russia may yet come out OK. One more bit of history. This is public record. Hours of phone conversations have taken place between
Yeltsin and President Bush before Yeltsin
publicly dissolved the C.C.C.P. In light of
your detailed summary of what followed, this may not be as much of a RED HERRING as one might tend to believe.
Thank's

[Dr_Woland]

Hello again, Mr U.!

Well, of course, it's "anyone's guess" what might have been said between Yel'tsin and Bush during those phone conversations (and their length may be doubled due to interpreting - neither man spoke the other's language).

We should remember that Yel'tsin was already in power when holding that conversation - so Bush could not have helped him reach that position.

But of course, as you correctly say, Yel'tsin's ability to HOLD that power, depended on knowing that the USA would not attempt to intervene, support Y's rivals, and also would continue and expand the humanitarian aid program that would bolster Yel'tsin's popularity. As they always say, "any society is only 3 meals away from a revolution".

Those were the "good" days of the Yeltsin regime - when he was keen to be seen to act as a Statesman, and had a team of top advisors. The President of the USA does not want to hear about the disintegration of its major foe in the Washington newspapers :-) He quite rightly expects prior notification of the developments which are planned. I suppose (purely my own guess) that this was the subject of those phone calls?

I wonder if we will ever know for sure, what those two men discussed that day: :-)

Do you - I ask seriously! - believe that Bush could have put Yeltsin into power? My own feeling is that the USA did not have enough influence to do such a thing at that time. If you remember the famous siege at the time of the Coup, the critical decision was taken by the Army, which refused to obey the orders to attack Yel'tsin, and remained in its barracks.

By the way, does anyone know the fate of those who organised that coup? Where are they now - in jail? I would be interested to know!

Dr W.

[Dr_Woland]

Good afternoon Mr Ungaro!

Just as an addition to our discussion of "who runs/owns Russia" <g>, there is a very interesting article in the L.A.Times today about Kremlin Chief-Of-Staff Alexander Voloshin, who has been described as the "king-maker" of Putin, and whose salary was paid by (no surprises!) Boris Berezovsky whilst he did the job.

Such an article about Voloshin could not appear in today's Russia, as he locks-up anyone who criticises him, so this is a rare chance to read about this man!

The article alleges that Voloshin was at the centre of the (allegedly!) crooked deal in which Berezovsky and Abramovich gained 80% control of petro-chemicals giant Sib-Neft.

It's too long to reprint here, and in any case is (c)opyright, but have a look at it at:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/20000625/t000060137.html

There is a critique of the situation from two men powerful enough not to be silenced - Boris Nemtsov (once named as a potential successor by Yeltsin himself), and Pyotr Aven, the controversial head of Alpha-Bank.

Dr W.