LyrArc Article Gist
German perceptions of Mikhail Gorbachev are shown here in DW.com. He is revered in Germany because of Gorbachev's efforts to end Soviet rule in East German state called the GDR, leading to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Gorbachev supported German reunification but did not do this is in a way that ensured that ordinary Russians and citizens of the GDR could make the transition to democratic processes in a smooth way. He also failed to grasp that economic transition could be difficult and would require extensive aid and grants from the west, and that safeguards and protections for retired pensioners and vulnerable sections of society needed to be in place. The following is a reflection of the background in political government and economy of the events in Europe leading to the war in Ukraine.  As a result Gorbachev's instincts were right by first 1956 as a student, and then 1979 as government official about the need for democratic processes to realize the real potential of Russia, just as has happened in many countries that lacked these processes for change in government- Japan, Germany, South Korea, India, Brazil and many countries in Asia and Latin America. But not realizing that these countries made the transition with considerable American and British assistance. Even where there was no direct assistance indirectly the British setup the first limited Swaraj or free rule in India, with elections and elected assemblies in Indian states in the 1930's, following the pattern in Dominion states Australia and Canada. Mohandas Gandhi negotiated within these processes for rights of South African Indians and Colored people, gaining experience, including study of British law.  A son of poor farmers in the agricultural region of North Caucasus, in Stavropol, it is relevant today that his maternal grand parents were from Chernihiv in Ukraine. He came to power in 1980 after entering the Politburo that year. These were the waning years of Leonid Brezhnev, president of the Soviet Union who followed Nikita Khrushchev (1953- 1964). Khrushchev was from eastern Ukrainian region near Donetsk. Leonid Brezhnev was a protege of Krushchev since 1931, from Kamianske, Ukraine.   Gorbachev was influenced by Khrushchev's speech that denounced Stalin in 1956 in favor of a freer and more open society. Khrushchev, became first secretary of the Communist party in 1953 after the death of Stalin and set the pace of post war Soviet society from 1950 to 1964. He removed the fear of the dictatorship of the proleteriat working class, increasingly dictatorial under Lenin, and blatantly arbitrary under his successor to make Soviet Union a freer society.  Yet his tendency to make decisions on his own without consulting others, and the failure of agriculture in the Soviet Union including food shortages led to his replacement by his protege Brezhnev. Brezhnev's whole career was built under Krushchev in Ukraine, in the army in Ukraine, and as a political leader in the Soviet 18th Army that entered Prague in 1945 defeating the Nazis. Why is this relevant? Gorbachev was educated at Moscow State University when the Soviet Union was in the Sputnik era, and felt at the time that it could reach the 1950's standard of living in the US- very different from the earlier leaders. Yet he may have been too much of an optimist and not hands on in understanding the working of a modern economy as large as Russia and the interests of different groups of society that had to be be balanced and protected. His understanding of the US and of how the US and British economies had evolved was limited or nonexistent. The isolation of the Soviet period may have compounded this. The Russian state in the Soviet Union could not simply unwind the power of the state and its intervention and everything would come out right of its own accord.   Leonid Brezhnev, the Ukrainian Russian who succeeded Krushchev from 1964 to 1979 let the system of Soviet rule remain as it was, in the Great Stagnation, leading to lethargy, lack of innovation, and a weak economy with military expansion. Gorbachev tried to regenerate the system by opening it up, but failed to see that there was a risk that it could come apart quickly as it did in just 4 years after he became president in 1985. Only the centralized power of the state had kept the Russian state together from the Tsarist period through the Communist period. The risks of this Gorbachev failed to grasp. What if it happened too quickly without a safety net for the people who could not make the transition. What lawlessness and failure of the rule of law could happen. The US and Britain had evolved their democracies over centuries. Wars were fought in the US and Britain over rights and responsibilities of kings and parliaments. In the US Lincoln fought the civil war not just for emancipation but to ensure safeguards for free white men on the farms so that Labor did not get disabilities placed on them by Capital (entrenched forces of Capital of which the southern plantation economy was only one aspect.)  Japan and Germany were set up as democratic states through American power and constitutional frameworks with Marshall Plans or agreement to take in unlimited imports from Japan. This bad scenario happened in Russia because Gorbachev failed to set the conditions first and work patiently to achieve them including introducing limited  elections and parliamentary processes first in Russia.  Leaders such as Yeltsin who succeeded Gorbachev in 1989, winning the elections that followed, failed to provide a safety net for the vulnerable in the 1980's. Unemployment increased rapidly, life expectancy dropped in Russia, and the economy failed in the early years after 1980. A Marshall Plan like that offered to Germany could have helped but Gorbachev's failure may have been his failure to provide this transition by arranging for West Germany and the US to support a planned transition, a kind of Marshall Plan of Aid, and maintaining a gradual move to democracy as the country was given time to learn institutions of American and British parliamentary democracy. No such Marshall Plan was negotiated for a smooth transition over inevitable obstacles, no safeguards were put in place for illegal efforts to control the state by rogue elements and to seize assets of state companies, no efforts to first introduce limited elections and parliamentary processes for learning democratic process in Russia, and the people of Russia were left with a memory of the this period as a bad lawless period from 1989 to 2005.  Leading to the situation today under Putin of aspiring to the Soviet period as a kind of period that had offered Russia the world recognition it had lost. And this had happened even though the Russian economy had recovered and the standard of living had risen under Putin. Putin's career spanned the period as a Russian official in Dresden, Germany Democratic Republic or Soviet period East Germany to working in the St Petersburg City Council under Yeltsin. He personally witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the German Democratic Republic from Dresden and Gorbachev's refusal to build a transition period for the changes so that it would not be traumatic for the GDR. Even after reunification these traumas remain in some segments of the older population in East Germany that saw themselves as neglected and support extreme right wing parties in eastern German states by 2020- considering the Soviet period as one in which their lives were less neglected.  After three terms as president Putin with his own traumas from that period in Dresden, and with a mother lost in the period after the Nazi invasion of Russia, a father who survived the Battle of Stalingrad, saw the period of lawless behaviour in the collapse of the Soviet Union as the"greatest geopolitical disaster of the century."  Putin and people around him made missteps and miscalculations launching a war in Ukraine, leading to the situation today- jeopardizing hard won gains for the Russian economy. By 2022 Russian standards of living had risen and the economy was in the best shape it had been in the modern period since the Industrial Revolution. Yet largely exposed because of the dependence on oil and gas during a period of climate change and focus on building future economies free of fossil fuels.  Putin in his own peculiar logic may have seen this as the only opportunity in 2022 before deliinking from fossil fuel reduced the importance of the Russian fuel dependent economy to make some territorial readjusments in Ukraine with a quick war taking Kviv. That turned into a massive miscalculation with the emergence of nationalist fervor in western Ukraine spreading to the whole country of 40 million people. In the future to 2030 with phasing out of the fossil fuel economy, Russia without the connections to the US and European Union's technology and resources it had during Putin's three terms, and facing strict sanctions from US and EU, faces a difficult future. This has cautionary lessons for all countries- the US that read too much into the fall of the Berlin wall and indulged in a losing proposition with free markets that damaged its infrastructure and manufacturing with shifts to China, China understanding of how it to was dependent on the world economy for its future development, India that had to navigate a difficult period and what lessons to draw for building a bigger economy, the EU realizing the failure of its policies of depending on Russia for energy and China for manufacturing with fragile supply chains,  and Russia that there were twists and turns and the need for safeguards and experience building democratic processes before these processes would work for the economy, its people and for Russia as a nation. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Russia experts Robert Nurick of the Atlantic Council, and Graham Allison of the Belfer Center of International Affairs at Harvard, see a sea change in attitudes to Russia following the interventionist policies of president Putin. The Obama administration will now focus on limiting Russian influence for the remaining two years of Obama's second term. There is a loss of faith in Putin on the part of Obama and close advisors. Russia is seen as a regional power, and the Ukraine crisis is seen as having a serious impact on the Russian economy through decline in trade, foreign investment and capital outflows. Russia is a regional power because it is not the same as the old Soviet Union, it is much smaller, with a declining population, and dependent on oil revenues, and in this sense not the Russia U,S, president Truman and Kennan faced during the Cold War. Obama advisors see Putin's actions as counterproductive for Russia, as the economy is now seen as contracting in 2014, making its actions in Syria, and in Ukraine, unwise foreign policy moves that hurts Russia's economy and future prosperity. Democratically elected leaders in Turkey and Russia with control over the media and shutting down the opposition using control of the judicial process, have shortchanged democratic ideals, and in the process concentrated powers in one leader. This creates risks of arbitrary exercize of power without the checks and balances that are built into a truly functioning democracy, with foreign policy errors eventually leading to a resolution of the conflicts created as these policies are increasingly called into question. Putin and Erdogan were reelected because of economic growth- a contractionary economy or steep declines in growth put everything at risk. A footnote on Kennan, American diplomat and linguist, is appropriate. A quick reading of Wikipedia's excellent account of Kennan will show that Kennan was in favor of a nuanced approach to Russia based on changing conditions. He observed that policies that were seen as anti-Russian actually helped Russian leaders throughout history solidify autocratic type rule, which actually hurts Russia's normal evolution and development. Normal development and evolution similiar to ways Germany and other nations left behind Prussian history and traditions for a open, free society, and in the ways even the U.S. left behind older practices such as slavery in the south and limited representation democracy. In fairness to Kennan it should be said that containment of the Cold War was more a Truman-Acheson doctrine- continued under Eisenhower by Dulles-Nitze, and under Kennedy by Rusk-McNamara- which has roots in Soviet intentions of destabilizing war ravaged western Europe starting with Greece, following similiar efforts in Eastern Europe. Truman was right in aiding Greece, but the U.S. needed to be aware of changing conditions and not take a rigid stance, and get locked into supporting client states just because they were "our guys," a lesson Kennan emphasized throughout his life. Putin and Erdogan use appeals to Russian and Turkish nationalism to improve electoral support and stifle free expression of ideas necessary for growth in any society. This also provides a way to have a discussion with our German friends on engagement and economic relationships, without the rigid outlook of a Wilsonian or Acheson-Dulles kind. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Both Russia and Georgia are faulted for the recent war between the two countries regarding Russian ethnic regions inside Georgia that seek to break away from Georgia.

LyrArc Article Gist
Saakashvili, the President of Georgia who was elected in 2004 has spent a lot of time in New York, as a waiter, as a student at Columbia Law School, and was elected at the age of 36, and runs an administration with a lot of 30 year olds. He says he has "American va;ues". HE also ran for election in 2004 on the platform of taking back the two ethnic Russian regions of Abhkazia and South Ossetia. Note also that the mountains near Abkhazi border the region around Sochi where Putin goes for vacation and likes to ski in the mountains and where the winter Olympics are to be held in 2014. He has also had run ins when he has talked to Putin saying he has western support for his position and has met with disdain from Putin. See th link to other articles in the New York Times about Putin's perspective on all this and how the two men share a dislike for one another which may have exacerbated Russia's response still further.

LyrArc Article Gist
Markets in Moscow recover and opinion settles down after Russia ends its war in Georgia to support ethnic Russians.

LyrArc Article Gist
This Nov. 2015 assessment by Economist magazine of Angela Merkel's 10 years as leader of Germany gives a rare glowing account of her leadership. Some failings including the slowness in tackling the early period of the eurozone economic crisis, but recovering through boldness as the crisis developed, and showing boldness in providing leadership for Europe both in the Ukraine crisis and the refugee crisis. It finds Cameron, Renzi and Hollande lacking in leadership qualities needed for Europe to thrive, and looks to Merkel's leadership for Europe's future progress.

LyrArc Article Gist
German leadership in the eurozone and the EU- with the strong stand for eurozone countries to do their economic homework and restore fiscal balance, and the action taken to bring the EU countries together on Russian intervention in Ukraine- is leading to questions about the dominant role played by Germany. Chancellor Merkel has played a leadership role partly because of the absence of other leaders with strong support in their home base who could provide such leadership. Merkel's poll rating in Germany actually shot up during the eurozone crisis from 40% in 2010 to 70% in 2013, and steady at 67% in June 2015, as German taxpayers and voters see Merkel as preventing debt ridden countries in the eurozone passing on higher costs in the debt crisis to Germany. With German wages kept low for the last decade to ensure a economic recovery and lower unemployment, Germans see no reason to support other eurozone countries when a low wage sector exists inside Germany, except under conditions that ensure fiscal balance. In a Harris poll taken in France June 30-July 1, 2015, Chancellor Merkel is rated higher at 43% expressing approval compared to 36% saying they approve of French premier Hollande's handling of the Greece and eurozone crisis. Over 50% of people in Spain and in France disapprove of Merkel's handling of the eurozone crisis, yet two thirds of France's main centre right party support Merkel's handling of the eurozone crisis. In the Harris poll when asked how Merkel, IMF, Hollande and Tsipras handled the Greece crisis people polled in France gave 43% approval to the IMF and Merkel compared to 36% for Hollande and Tsipras of Greece, and 60% disapprove of Hollande and Tsipras handling of the crisis compared to 53% disapproval for the IMF and Merkel. The Christian Democrats party in Germany has dominant leaders in its tradition starting with Konrad Adenauer in the early postwar years, through the Kohl years during reunification and Merkel in the eurozone crisis. By contrast the Social Democrats from the period under Wily Brandt, through the Schmidt years and Schroeder have operated under more of a consensus leadership. Under Sigmar Gabriel or some other Social Democratic leader Germany is likely to have a different style of leadership in the future, especially because the German public does not favor Germany playing this kind of dominant role. At different points in the eurozone crisis Merkel's leadership was needed for decisionmaking- making banks take a 50% writedown on their loans in negotiation with Charles Dallara in Brussels, calling for Italy's president to bring in a new government (led by Mario Monti) when premier Berlusconi failed to make needed changes, and providing flexibility for spending rules for Spain, Italy and France. Merkel has actually moved to the centre to maintain popular support inside Germany, especially since the new coalition government was formed with Social Democrat leader Sigmar Gabriel. On the other major issue of immigration Merkel has provided decisive leadership to prevent the rise of anti-immigrant parties in Germany. Herfried Munkler, author of "Power in the Middle," about why Germany is playing this role may provide clues to Germany's role- by representing different aspects of German public opinion Merkel has prevented the rise of right wing populist or nationalist parties in Germany, which would distort the German narrative about what it sees as its role in keeping Europe together after three wars. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A very relevant comment about the media coverage on Putin's negotiations in Beijing for supplying natural gas to China, by a reader of the WSJ, Frank Peel. He points out China and Russia do not share the same goals and Putin talked about the Chinese as tough negotiators after signing the deal. The price as a "commercial secret" is because its years, could be 5, before gas actually flows to China from Siberian fields. Russia, is a smaller oil based economy- having failed to make the transition to a diversified economy- and very susceptible to the economic conditions in Europe and the U.S., as the 2008 crisis showed with very steep drops in output. President Obama has also pointed to this. Russia also shares with Argentina the tendency for elites- in the case of Russia a newly created oligarchy of business interests under Putin and his predecessor- to shift capital out of the country, making it even more susceptible to loss of value of the currency, the ruble. Devaluation of the ruble experienced under Yeltsin was severely traumatic for Russia, and the head of Russia's central bank went on state television recently to reassure ordinary Russians that this would not happen. The rainy day sovereign fund of over $400 billion acts as a cushion for shocks in short periods, but sustained loss of foreign investment would damage prospects for future improvements in standards of living or economic growth....

LyrArc Article Gist
Von Mark Schieritz of Germany's Zeit Online describes the changes underway following the election campaigns in the U.S., and France, and the Brexit vote in Britain, all signalling the discontent of people left behind by the tech, capitalism, trade and globalization changes of the last two decades. The appeal of one time fringe politicians using racist slogans and divisive rhetoric to appeal to those left behind, appealing to people lacking intergenerational mobility, and without much hope for a better future, is a serious concern. People who are gullible enough, lack college education, or racially isolated so that they are not likely to look carefully at what is being offered in terms of programs and change of competing parties, and likely to overlook the hard and difficult road for corrective course of action, because of anger and pentup fears. Schieritz cites as part of this change the unanimously approved conclusion in its final declaration at the G-20 meeting in Chengdu, China- "The benefits of growth need to be shared more broadly within and among countries to promote inclusiveness." Yet this can be a sort of "too little, too late."  Bankers who are cited in an email going around Wall Street lack credibility with groups on Main Street, to people adversely affected by tech, trade and globalization changes that have been persistently ignored for over a decade, close to two decades. More convincing is the tone of Theresa May, the British prime minister's first statement outside 10 Downing Street- who spoke of the "burning injustices" and her determination to make this a top priority of her government. Still more convincing are the programs to invest $275 billion over 10 years in infrastructure put forward by the leading candidate in the U.S. presidential election of 2016, to provide easier access to public universities and colleges to those left behind, as a sure way to create new jobs and address intergenerational mobility. In fact every leading candidate had made the loss of upward mobility their central plank already in 2015, long before Trump and Sanders started their campaign. The real hope lies in western leaders Merkel, May, and Clinton, all keenly aware students of changes, all women by the way who have sensed the injustice and have the ability to come up with something new and promising for the future, after learning the lessons of the past. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Defense Secretary Gates does not see Russia as the threat it was in the Cold War, first because Russia's conventional forces are a "shadow" of what they were during the Cold War, and Russia has adverse demographic trends that will diminish Russia's ability in conventional forces. He sees the Georgian war in the context of Russia's seeking to exorcize, as he puts it, past humiliations. And Gates sees opportunities in the relationship with Russia. Such things as Russia's willingness to work with the US on Afghanistan. Evidence of this is Russia supporting the renwal of the UN resolution on Afghanistan. Another indication is that Russia he says is very worried about the drugs coming out of Afghanistan, and has been supportive to provide alternative routes for Europeans to get equipment and supplies into Afghanistan. These views come across in an interview on December 17, with Charlie Rose, a five time elected Congressman, for the PBS Charlie Rose show. They are also reflected in an article in Foreign Affairs journal's current issue. Gates was a CIA analyst and has some insightful observations. Gates told Charlie Rose that he does not see the Islamic radicals and violent Islamic extremists as a threat in the same way as the threat in the Cold War years. This threat is not as big as the threat to freedom during the Cold War. He says the failure in strategic communications was huge as agencies of the US government engaged in activities in other countries, like the Agency for International Development and the US Information Agency, were neglected starting in the in the 1990's. Communications in other countries of what the US represented and stands for was left to the Pentagon, a role the Pentagon was ill-suited for. He sees the Islamic terrorism as more of an ideological conflict. Speaking at a town hall meeting at the Balad Air Force base in Iraq, in December, Gates pointed to these communications failures as a real challenge for the new administration. But he now sees a huge opportunity in this past failure, and ways of addressing it creatively, in addition to commiting resources and people to this effort. Walter Pincus wrote this article, and its part of the fineprint analysis effort at the Washington Post in which speeches, reports, and other documents are examined by people like Pincus, to catch the really important things, uncovering the fine print that really makes the headlines. Another aspect of this fineprint effort is that there are a huge number of reports, and speeches and documents that had a tone reminiscent of the Cold War during the Georgia war and yet they do not correctly reflect the real situation about Russia, as Gates sees it from his analysis of what is actually happening. Gates has used Foreign Affairs, the Dec 17 Charlie Rose Show on PBS in which he was interviewed, and the speech at the Balad Air Force base in Iraq, to communicate his views and analysis. They are important to underline and emphasize precisely because they show that all that cold war hysteria reporting and speeches may be misleading and lead to improper conclusions and mistakes in policy, wasted effort, wasted resources, and lost lives. And just as the US strategic communications was starved of resources and effort, so also this necessary work to retrieve and give emphasis to the important things is neglected. One additional link to this is the speech, discussion, and QA session in Washington DC at the time of the G20 summit in which President Medvedev and the new administration's elder statesman and diplomat Marilyn Albright, former secretary of state, expressed their hopes and plans for a new era in Russian-American relations. ...