Welcome to the new world disorder

"Even Russians had seen worse. For them, the 20th century had already brought the first world war, with the Bolshevik grab for power, followed by Stalin’s self-induced famine, which killed millions. By contrast, the end of the cold war was hardly devastating."

This is an extraordinary glib comment. The collapse of USSR and the chaos of the 90s (aided and abetted by the Economists chums I might add) was an event that for Russia ranked with the Great Depression in terms of human misery. Just how many million people did the Lancet conclude died as a direct result of the shock therapy the Economist heartily supported?
The Russians are used to misery, they can take it. Is that right?

The Second World War is conspicuously absent from the list of traumatic events to befall the country. Why is that I wonder?

The rabid Russophobia of the Economist only serves to discredit its reputation as a serious publication.

The author of this Economist article could use a refresher course of the 20th century European history while producing an updated version of his article. One cannot dismiss with just two words a key fact that the map of Europe was dramatically changed as a result of World War I with a number of new countries emerging in place of what for generations used to be Prussia, Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires: Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, etc. were born, new international borders were redrawn and, regrettably but true, conditions were set that brought about Fascism in Spain, Italy and in the German Reich. The Russian monarchy, which for generations ruled an empire from the Baltic to the Pacific, ceased to exist, while a Marxist-Leninist clique, having succeeded in grabbing power in Moscow, proceeded to implement their far-reaching plans for a world-wide communist revolution.

None of this apparently deserves the author’s attention who dismisses with just couple of words the impact of Leninism-Stalinism both on Russia and on all so-called ‘Soviet’ socialist republics that underwent an unprecedented deep social and cultural revolution. Even today the mentality of generations of Russians, as well as of other nationalities, who were guided all their lives by the fiction of building a “socialist paradise”, is unquestionably apparent.

The author immediately jumps to the post-1945 nuclear stand-off ignoring a fundamental impact of the collapse of Hitler’s Reich and of the Japanese empire on Stalin’s Soviet Union and the occupation of half of Europe by the Soviet troops. He is obviously not interested in assessing a stark contrast between the process of successful rebuilding of Western Europe compared to intensive implementation of communist ideology and of a firm control by the Soviet arms of all Central European states. He evidently gives more weight to Ronald Reagan’s “star wars” dream of a missile-defence shield than to a realistic assessment of the post Stalinist transition from a Soviet “proletarian revolution” to a renewed priority of glorifying Russia’s past and present. Preoccupied with details of minor historical significance, the author of the article fails to meet the standard expected from the Economist.

The Economist in every of its article on Russia quotes Putin's
words, “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” referring to the breakup of the Soviet Union. However nobody really explains what Putin meant by that. It was a catastrophe for many people who had family ties in different republics, intermarriages and for old generation who could not accept changes. Breakup led to many ethnic conflicts and bloodshed. Today I don’t think any sensible person would wish revival of the old system.

Surprisingly enough the Economist admits eventually that Russians suffered a lot too. Previously it were only Ukrainians, Balts or others but not Russians. Economist writes,” Yet few ouside Russia lamented the passing of the century’s last failed empire.” I would ask if few outside lamented the passing of British Empire”.

Economist, “Indeed the collapse of Soviet influence around the world went unmourned outside Russia.” It still goes “unmourned” here in Russia. I don’t think Putin is mourning. He mourns more today over OPEL cancelled deal.

Economist, “In many ways it was the Soviet Union that lost the cold war, rather than America that won it.” Good statement. Means nobody wins, only benefits from it. However lately America hasn’t won a single war. American’s favorite war game is “fire-and-forget”.
However, overall the article gives brief history of the USSR that every high school student knows.

@Didomyk
"As to a suggestion that no one is mourning the passing of the British empire, the comparison simply doesn't hold any water. In sharp contrast to the post-Soviet experience, all former British possessions have become prosperous independent states while retaining their Commonwealth ties and, in most cases, their symbolic allegiance to the British monarchy. Mr. kuzmich should try and refresh his expertise in foreign affairs before making similar comparisons."

Jackass - I can assure you the Chinese and Indians do not mourn the passing of the British empire. As for Canada, Australia, NZ or the US - well the natives are mostly dead there aren't they, I suspect given the chance they would also not mourn the passing of the British empire.

"Other recently expired empires, such as the British, Dutch, French, had left some residue for locals grudgingly to admire: habits of administration, a legal system, even just a useful language."

Dutch is a useful language? More so than Russian? I should also point out that there are more native and secondary speakers of Russian than there are of French. Besides, I don't see too many useful bits of "residue" in Chad, Congo, Cambodia, Iraq etc. etc. I'm not disagreeing that the Soviet rule of Eastern Europe benefited the USSR more than Eastern Europe, but let's not spin this as if the USSR is somehow unique in that respect. If the author means that the British Empire left better legacies (debatable, its true), then let's just say that; but let's not use the generally atrocious legacies of the French, Dutch and other colonial empires as window dressing.

Didomyk my friend,

You are getting nastier and nastier. I can even hear hysterical notes in your comments. Compose yourself. The battle is not over yet. Calm down. Didomyk, I spent 3 years in India and know the score. Out of a 1.2 billion population, maybe about 300.000 enjoy their life, the rest literary live in the dumps. I visited China too. A bit better, regarding standards of living, but mainly urban population lives better. Chinese never get retirement pensions unless they work for the government. Overall, their salaries are very small.

You revel over other economies and gloat over Russia. However, you never get us familiar with Ukrainian economy and I believe you feel sorry that Ukraine did not belong to the British empire. You never mention that throughout Ukrainian history, Ukraine was under Poland, Germany, Soviet Union or now Uncle Sam. So-called Ukrainian democracy is only a guise. Democracy in disguise. Your leaders are all of the refined Soviet mindset no worse than Zyuganov’s. You’re like kids there playing democratic games and Orange revolutions. Looks like Yushchenko will shift elections for May. He has an excuse – Swine Flu pandemic. However, there's no way to make up for lost time.

Now have a look at the situation in Ukraine. Just to be objective the below information comes from your American friends.

This publication was produced by IFES for the U.S. Agency for International Development

Dissatisfaction & Disillusionment in Ukraine:

According to that survey majority (93%) of the Ukrainians are dissatisfied with the political situation in Ukraine as well as foreign policy of Ukraine 75%. Regarding economic situation 93% described it as bad. 76% of the Ukrainians believe that Ukraine is on a path to instability and chaos. An overwhelming majority (91%) of Ukrainians believe corruption is common in Ukraine.

Majority 55 % do not believe Ukraine is a democracy. And so on onwards.

Didomyk, here’s a link for you to make a research of 66 pages: http://www.ifes.org/publication/04984ffad279e75714908bfdc34e9741/Ukraine...
Others are welcome to join too.

Now about situation in the Ukrainian armed forces. Feels you like rusty objects.

When Yuschenko took up the post of President of Ukraine, he appraised the armed forces of the country as follows: “our armed forces are not ready for new challenges, local conflicts, struggle against terrorism and a high-tech war.” Situation haven’t changed during Yuschenko's presidency. According to Chairman of Verkhovna Rada's committee for national security and defense Georgy Kriuchkov, “All these years the armed forces have only degraded. Today the army is obviously not capable to attend to its duties.

Most expert regard the situation in the army is simply critical. According to former Ukrainian Defense Minister Alexander Kuzmuk, (nearly my namesake) there will be no more funds provided for the feeding of servicemen. The second former Minister of Defense Anatoly Gritsenko said that in the Ukrainian Armed Forces only 4 percent of soldiers receive training, and other 96 percent are reading summaries, books and marching on a drill ground. Four soldiers out of hundred receive training, and other 96 approach the military hardware only to watch it. These soldiers do not even go to a firing ground.

Okay Didomyk, looks like Ukraine undergoes gloom and doom. You preoccupy yourself a lot with Russia and like to cast stones at Russia but you’d better think more of your ridna Ukraine and apply your efforts and marvelous skills to upgrade Ukraine and make it comfortable for your people.

rusotrece,

Don't pay any attention to griboyedov, he is definitely getting payed to post on this site...there is no way he could post as much as he does unless it's his full time job.

A New global order out of new world disorder?. i see this happening out of disintegration of former soviet union.The forces that are causes and consequences of this new world disorder is partly human and partly to natural law directed.

If one look at the course of history, The path of rise and fall of empires and nations, the kingdoms and other fuedatories including the religious powers that be claiming the secular state powers are deeply correlated to path of rise and fall of individual freedoms and public powers at opposite poles.This conflict is ever recurring in day today life of any and every citizen within countries and among countries.

Marx has rightly put the march of history on his adopting the Hegel version by a conflict of productive forces and relations of production in economic structures of countries or kingdoms or empires.This in turn has to be seen in the light of relationship between the economic and political forces and powers of states.

viewed in the light of above broad principles, the struggle to dominate the world order between the communist powers and the capitalist free enterprising powers over the period of nearly seven to eight decades of soviet communist power is illustrating for drawing many significant lessons for future guidance of humanity.

This is conflict between the freedom and security of individual and a conflict between the individual freedom and extent of social control through state for public good.The vacillation of individual over giving his consent for to public authority is like a pendulum moving from one end to other depending upon the force applied ad threat felt by the individual for the safety and security to ones life and liberties.In an economy limited by resources, freedom to one is a threat to another. so is the case of nations among independent states in a world order.This is evident with in nations and among nations. US perception differs from the Russian nationalist Putin over the disintegration of soviet power and freedom to east European nationalities and other communist regimes, a power to corporates is threat to unions. powers to US or Europe is a threat to soviet union or its later dismembered Russians federation or recent rising Chinese ambitions.The old cold war between the communism garbed Russian empire building ambitions and US led free enterprising countries is now being replaced by more complicated anarchic world disorder as is rightly put by economist version.

but one common factor in history and the present day is the rise of global productive powers and the new world of global relations of production and consumption.It is this factor which has the global uniting force out of necessity to trade and intercourse arising out new global productive forces but the relations among the people and nations is conditioned by the old or existing laws based on mostly self interested or zero sum based game rules and the unity is submerged in this disunity of the world order after the collapse of Berlin wall or end of cold war.The cry against the global out sourcing of Jobs in US and global financial or Banking crisis is some instances of this new conflict situations between the economics and politics.

It is to say that science and technology and its advanced productive frces has the uniting force global political powers and new world order but the the threat the interest groups see in this new change towards new global order is also so powerful that they crate political disorder opposing the change. in other words its a struggle among forces of change and forces opposing the change.Obama has won on the slogan of "Change" for good. But now is he threading the path of "global change". to remove the irritants to new global order out of this new disorder. has he grasped the changing character of new world order and its underlying forces?I wish he understood.so also i wish other world leaders rewrite their national ambitions towards new global order and not towards global disorder which may produce national conflict of ambitions whether it be US, rising china,Russia, Germany. India,japan,or the like in the nature of nationalist and dogmatic religious garbed ambitions to destroy the onward march of global civilization.

You have to credit Ronald Reagan for planning and delivering on the objective to crumble USSR by economic warfare, rather than military. This is what took the cold war to and end with no bloodshed. Mr Reagan is truly a person of historical dignity, no matter what the liberals want to believe.

the article reads "Other recently expired empires, such as the British, Dutch, French, had left some residue for locals grudgingly to admire: habits of administration, a legal system, even just a useful language. Not the Soviet one."

Right, former soviet states have been left without a useful language.
Obviously, the writer of this article has never heard (probably as his privledged rich life has him living in a bubble) of the many people from former soviet states, for examaple Kyrgyzstan, who go to Russia to work, where they can earn more in a week than they could in a month, and them having russian as a result of the soviet union helps them to do this.

Yet another example of the fact that the Economist simply doesn't like russia, and peddles lies on a nearly weekly basis.

It is simple plain ignorance on the Economist's part, that the editor allows such nonsense to be published.

Some of Russian patriots on this forum like talking about Khruschev's "giveaway" of the Crimea preferring to ignore infamous Russian colonisation of this land and people. Both the imperial Russian monarchy and the Russian overlords of Stalin's socialist "paradise" treated Crimea's Tatars in a manner similar to Nazi's treatment of Jews during WWII. Let's make sure everybody understands "highlights" of Crimea's past.

Chronological history of the CRIMEAN TARTARS

1441 - Establishment of the Crimean Khanate as an independent state, - lasted without interruption until 1783.

April 8, 1783 - Russia’s Catherine II annexed Crimea. Due to Russian
oppressive policies, over less then 120 years the Crimean Tartar population, originally estimated at over five million, decreased by the early 1900s to less than 300,000

November 28, 1917 - as a result of Russian revolution an independent Crimean state was proclaimed but lasted only six months.

October 18, 1921 - The Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (Crimean ASSR) was established by Lenin’s special order. From 1921 until 1927 Crimean Tartar nationalism was allowed to flourish. 1927 brought arrests and executions of Tartar leaders accused of "bourgeois nationalism." Tens of thousands of Tartars perished during Stalin’s deportations. The Crimean Tatar alphabet was changed twice, in 1928 from Arabic script to Latin and in
1938 from Latin to Cyrillic script.

May 18, 1944 - The entire Crimean Tartar population, mostly women, children and the elderly, was loaded onto cattle wagons and shipped off to the Urals and Uzbekistan in Central Asia. Due to hunger and diseases some 50% of Crimean Tartars perished during this forced deportation. The survivors were forced to live in "Special Settlement Camps" and prohibited leaving Asia.

April 28, 1956 - Survivors officially released from the "Special Settlement Camps" during Nikita Khruschev's de-Stalinization.

September 5, 1967 - An official Soviet decree exonerated the Crimean Tartars from any wrong doing during World War II. However, Crimean Tartars who attempted to return to Crimea were refused settlement in their ancestral homeland and, once again, deported by the Kremlin.

May 2, 1989 - the Crimean Tartar National Movement Organization, the first political party since 1917, was established.
June 26-30, 1991 - The Second Crimean Tartar National Kurultay (parliament) was convened in Akmescit (Simferopol) for the first time since 1917 and on June 30, 1991 declared the sovereignty of the Crimean Tartars, and adopted the national anthem and the national flag.

Dec.1, 1991 - over 90 % of Ukraine’s population, including that of the Autonomous Crimea, voted for Ukraine’s independence. Russia recognized Ukraine’s independence on Dec.3, 1991

July 27, 1993 - The Third Crimean Tartar National Kurultay was held in Simferopol.
March 29, 1994 - The Crimean Tartars elected 14 Tartar Deputies to the Crimean Parliament. Since Crimean Tartars were allowed to return to their homeland over a quarter-million have done so. There are now about 300,000 Tartars in Crimea, about 12 percent of the peninsula's population.

May 18- 22, 2009 the World Congress of Crimean Tartars (Kurultai) was held in the Crimean city of Bakhchisaray, attended by more than 800 delegates from 12 countries.

griboyedov, are you an idiot? "rabid" -you think this is anti semitic slur? i am a a quarter jew myself. go learn some english

Unfortunately there is only one Truth, "If anyone depends on the enemies's existence, when the enemies are faded out; there is only one fate, the same way out.

Why is it that certain countries are despised for their arms sales, but others - primarily the US and other countries in the West alledgedly do so in the name of "peace"?

HisFrogginess wrote:"I can assure you the Chinese and Indians do not mourn the passing of the British empire."

A clear demonstration of your ignorance and traditional 'kacapian' intollerance. Clearly, you know next to nothing about India, a country that has absorbed many British-based European governing traditions and technological knowhow to transform its formerly medieval society into one of the most vibrant modern economies. India's huge population represents a powerhouse of continuing economic growth based on high technology manufacturing and service industries while exercising growing political influence in the world.

Compared to Russia's steadily shrinking population, your backward economy and diminishing world influence due to your autocratic corrupt KGB leadership, India indeed has a future, politically, economically and militarily, all this while having managed to build and strengthen its democratic government system drawing on British experience.

As to China, with its two milleniums of history, culture and civilization, and with well over a billion people, it is about to become the dominant power in Asia. You should advise your Kremlin leaders to start relocating Russian troops and Kremlin's stooges from major population centers in Asia to the Urals preparing to hand over all territories east of the lake Baikal to the Chinese.

Just as during the Cold War every international issue would be hijacked by ideological extremists of the USSR and the US in their pointless propaganda war, comment section of every Economist article related to Russia gets hijacked by the same bunch of opposing zealots throwing insults at each other. Boring to the point of being mind-numbing - like that Cold War confrontation - but hopefully this one will not last for 40-something years...

kuzmich wrote: "Economist, “Indeed the collapse of Soviet influence around the world went unmourned outside Russia.” It still goes “unmourned” here in Russia. I don’t think Putin is mourning."

Unfortunately, far too many in Russia do indeed mourn the collapse of Soviet influence around the world and particularly in Europe. The presence of Soviet military bases in all Warshaw Pact states, the averall single command under some Russian Marshal, the ability to dictate via the Moscow COMECON apparatus not only broad economic policies of all COMECON states but also state investments into production facilities and direction of each state's external trade, - these are just some major examples of Russia's unprecedented influence which vanished with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Its this kind of wideranging Russian influence that Putin and his close KGB trained advisors are mourning day in, day out.

As to a suggestion that no one is mourning the passing of the British empire, the comparison simply doesn't hold any water. In sharp contrast to the post-Soviet experience, all former British possessions have become prosperous independent states while retaining their Commonwealth ties and, in most cases, their symbolic allegiance to the British monarchy. Mr. kuzmich should try and refresh his expertise in foreign affairs before making similar comparisons.

Didomyk: This article is about the realities of our post-soviet world, not the entire history of the Russian people. The author's intent was to illustrate the effect the collapse of the USSR had on its supplicant states, and subsequently how that changed the west and the rest of the world in the 1990s; to this end the author succeeded. Why you would expect a magazine to provide an exhaustive geopolitical history in a 2-3 page article is beyond me.

Here's what you need to do. Go to your local library, and check out 'Encyclopedia Britannica'- it's in the reference section. Open up to page 1, volume 1, and start reading. Then, you can indulge that pseudo-intellect of yours for years on end, and hopefully by the time you are finished you will have forgotten your Economist.com password and no longer be able to interrupt the normal flow of conversation. Truly, it's a win-win for everyone.

Kochevnik,

Indians, for instance learned from British blokes how to make and drink whiskey, gin and tea, as well as to speak Indian English at times difficult to understand.

To my friend Didomyk, specialist in Tartars, Stalin, Indian armed forces, curry and Chinese noodles. Patriot of Ukraine.

Underfeeding of Ukrainian army leads to a detrimental effect. Servicemen become sort of groggy on empty stomachs and confuse military targets with civilian ones, and shoot down passenger aircrafts causing death of innocent passengers.

Sorry my friend I was on inspection of Indian armed forces from 2002 until June 2005. The inspection showed that glorious Indian armed forces were mainly equipped with Russian military hardware.

I’m glad to see improvements in the Ukrainian military hardware. I went through the photos. Great parade in downtown Kiev. I wonder from where you got this idea of holding military parades and those don’t bother you. It’s good to flex muscles. You know Didomyk pretty well that “October day” is a working day in Russia. So don’t throw dust in my eyes. You’ve already pictured me in different capacities from admiral to diplomat.Really appreciated.However, I was not even a Komsomol member.

Regarding the Crimea. We discussed that issue many times. However, if to follow your logic then Ukraine should give back the Crimea to the Tartars and Turkey will be there to join. Good perspective to get Islamist fundamentalism right at your doorstep. But Ukraine feels itself as a small Empire and won’t give away a tiny bit of its land. Didomyk, you can get your Chechen war.

I hope you’ve already made a research of 66 pages, a link I gave you. Waiting for your accurate synopsis on

“Dissatisfaction and Disillusionment in Ukraine”.