LyrArc Article Gist
Rebuilding the Russian economy with the help of investment from the US and Europe was a key job for Elvira Nabiullina at the Russian central bank and Vladimir Putin as head of the administration during the 10 years after the Yeltsin government from 1998 to 2008. Much of these gains may now be lost with the invasion of Ukraine, and the miscalculations of both western leaders Merkel in Germany and Bush-Obama and Mr. Putin as shown in a recent WSJ report on the miscalculations of the last 20 years.

LyrArc Article Gist
The period of disorder after the collapse of Communism led the rise of oligarchs in the Yeltsin period of 1990. Mr. Putin replaced Yeltsin and established himself by expelling most of the oligarchs of that period. Expelling these corrupt oligarchs gave credibility to Mr. Putin during his decades in power. Only to see the rise of new industrial magnates who promoted national brands, efficency, and concentration of capital in key areas of steel, oil and gas and other sectors. These businessmen are also called oligarchs though they are of a different kind similar to that of the Carnegies and Mellons and Rockefellers at a time of industrialization in the US in the late 19th century. Some of them support Mr. Putin and a version of Russian nationalism that prevailed under Czarist rule till the Bolshevik takeover in 1917 that ended by 1990.  The policies for supremacy in Europe pursued since 1500 to 1990 are now the policies pursued by Mr. Putin and shown by Cambridge historian Brendan Simms in his new book "Europe 1500 to the Present."    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Leonid Kravchuk is a Soviet era official who joined with Boris Yeltsin to support dissolution of the Soviet Union. He died at the age of 88 in May 2022. He is remembered for leading Ukraine to independence in 1991 with support of nationalists in western Ukraine and pro-Russian supporters in eastern Ukraine. Another reason he is remembered is for peaceful transition of power to his prime minister Mr. Kruchma in the 1994 election. He also dismantled Ukraine's large nuclear arsenal under pressure from Russia and the US. His failings were in letting corruption grow including the bankruptcy of the Black Sea Shipping Company, says DW.com. Ukraine had no experience in the democratic process. It has close ties with Poland which in the 17th and 18th century had some form of democratic process. Lviv is a short distance from Poland. Kravchuk was from a part of Ukraine that was once part of Poland. With a population of 52 million Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe. Its transition from the Soviet Union to a independent state was painful says DW.com with millions of people finding themselves living in poverty and the period being remembered as "kravchuchka." Since that period Ukraine has grown and was setting up new foundations for entry into the European Union.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Putin was born in St Petersburg, then called Leningrad, where his father worked in a factory making railway cars. He studied law at Leningrad State University, graduated in 1975 and went through KGB training before going to Dresden in 1985, where he remained with the KGB till 1990 and the collapse of the Berlin Wall. By 1990, the Soviet Union collapsed and from 1990 to 1996, Putin worked in St. Petersburg first as assistant and then as Deputy Mayor with Anatoly Sobchak, a law professor at Leningrad State University, and Mayor of St. Petersburg. After Sobchak narrowly lost the election, Putin left for a position in the property department in the Kremlin, joining other Sobchak associates who worked in the Kremlin. From 1996 to 1999, Putin moved up quickly in the chaotic Yeltsin years. In 1998 he was promoted to head the FSB, the successor to the KGB. And in August 1999, Yeltsin appointed Putin Prime Minister. In December 1999, Yeltsin appointed Putin acting president. Putin named Medvedev, deputy chief of staff in 2000. The five years in the St. Petersburg city administration and the years in Moscow in the Kremlin under Yeltsin were chaotic years for Russia and for Putin, as he observed first hand the lawlessness and general breakdown in Russia. This may have influenced the early Yeltsin years enthusiasm for democracy, to an appreciation of the problems for democracy in the actual environment that he was facing in Russia. He developed a distrust of the innocent enthusiasm of Americans for a wholesale transfer of American and British political institutions to the Russian environment. This was a period of great shock in Russia, as even the lifespan of Russians was declining rapidly in this period, and there was a lot of poverty. The struggles between the Mayor and the city council in St Petersburg, even as the city was facing food shortages and economic collapse, and the latter Yeltsin years may have convinced Putin of the need to combine democratic society and elections with a strong central administration, with authority concentrated in a Presidential system and not a parliamentary democracy. In bringing central direction he brought in his KGB connections, but in choosing his successor he turned to a law student at Leningrad State University of Sobchak's, who is quite different from Putin's KGB associates. Medvedev is a softspoken thoughtful administrator and intellectual compared to Putin, and his experience covers the 10 years both Putin and Medvedev spent together both in St. Petersburg and Moscow in 1990-2000, and the period from 2000 to the present day- when Medvedev served both as Putin's head of staff and as head of Gazprom. See the link to the St Petersburg Times, November 6, 2007 on Medvedev. From his St. Petersburg days Putin clearly understood the need for foreign investment and the need to create a climate for attracting foreign investment. This seems to be happening as Russia draws more foreign investment for industry and infrastructure. His background with the KGB shows up in the centralization of authority in the light of the chaotic years and economic collapse preceding it. And his days as part of Sobchak's efforts to bring democracy to St Petersburg shows up in his continuing respect for democratic elections and the Russian constitution. One compromise was made in the process- a consolidation of the media so that opposition's access to the media may not be what it could be, and at the same time it does reflect the tide of popular opinion in Russia that credits the economic recovery and progress and optimism for the future to the Putin administration. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The contrast between modernizing, developing East and South Asia ( from Mumbai to Shanghai) with war torn desolate West Asia (from Tehran and Baghdad to Kabul and Islamabad) is so striking today that it is something to reflect upon for wisdom and understanding. UAE support for Sudan's RSF Rapid Strike Force and Saudi support for the military - fracturing of Sudan, errors piled on errors led to the civil war in Sudan. A civil war in a country neighboring Saudi Arabia just across the Red Sea. Saudis and UAE were on opposite sides briefly after UAE pulled out of Sudan, UAE acting in this way to object against Saudis requesting US sanctions on UAE.  Once close partners have moved apart as they spread their influence in different conflicts in the Middle East.  This has not created a region that can grow economically without the disruptions of conflict in the way other parts of Asia have emerged to modernize the countries as in Taiwan, Korea, China and India. In neighboring Pakistan another conflict has emerged as partners split, with looming conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yemeni Houthis are in conflict with the US and affect the Persian Gulf shipping lanes.  Iran with it's pursuit of weapons programs and nuclear weapons is using capital that is badly needed to improve the economic situation on arms buildup for the regime and for allies in Lebanon and Yemen, leading to protests and crisis. In this way the Middle East has failed to use oil wealth to modernize the entire region. Much of it was wasted in Iraq and now in Iran by policies that led to war and regional conflicts not modernization and technological transformation that has happened in Asia. The US has inadvertently becoming a partner to this as when the Obama administration helped fund Iran's economic rebuilding which was instead used to fund the military, and before that the Reagan administration support for Iraqi socialist ideology regime. The challenge for China was how to modernize after the Japanese invasion and civil war. In Korea it was how to modernize after the civil war. In India it is how to modernize with a smaller neighboring country Pakistan promoting terrorism and wars now with China's support. In Asia all these challenges were and are being met to steadily and persistently modernize to European standards with a singleminded focus and determination to meet the aspirations of the people with the US business working alongside Taiwanese, Korean, Chinese, and Indian governments and private industry. In West Asia various ideological (Iraq), military (Pakistan), religious Shiite (Iran), religious + modernizing (Saudi +UAE) with erratic leaders and little representation of the people, has destroyed the tranquillity of the region and destroyed democratic forms of government, destroyed bottom up education and health of the population except for priviliged groups in countries in the region of West Asia. Involvement of US and Europe or Russia in West Asia has led to distintegration of Soviet Union (Boris Yeltsin) and deindustrialization of US and Europe (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama administrations) with business shipping out manufacturing to China while wars engaged the attention of American and European elites in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan. The entire west Asian scene for 1950-2030 has been a disaster, one massive disaster for all involved. The contrast with East Asia and South Asia reminds one of the words from Robert Frost of New England in Mowing- that reflects on the enduring value of honest labour. "My long scythe whispered to the ground. What was it it whispered? It was no dream of the gift of idle hours, or easy gold at the hand of fay or elf: anything less would have seemed too weak to the earnest love that laid the swale in rows. The fact is the sweetest dream that labour knows. My long scythe whispered and left the hay to make." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Interesting insight on the election of December 2007, why it was held, and the differences between warring factions from the FSB, the military and other parts of the government and business leading to conflicts just before the elections. The election and the vote for putin was Putins way of reasserting his authority in Russia even as he nears th expiry of his term and names a successor. It shows how fragile the situation politically is in Russia even as the country has made economic proress from the Yeltsin years and a succession is not to be taken lightly to continue the work of economic progress and further development of democratic processes without the chaos of the 1990's.

LyrArc Article Gist
New winds in South Asia. Democratic change and peaceful economic development comes to Nepal as elctions are held for a new Constituent Assembly to write a new constitution. One leader says Nepal cannot ignore the winds of liberalization privatization and globalization. What are the effects of change in China, in India and recent changes in Pakistan on Nepal? And the changes and two transitions in Russia to Yeltsin and then to Putin. And again in Eastern Europe. All showing divergent paths to peaceful economic development They have to be significant.

LyrArc Article Gist
Making some territorial concessions appears to be the only way for peace talks to succeed. For a long time there was insistence on territorial sovereignty of Ukraine by EU and NATO leaders. This appears to have prolonged the war- with needless loss of life on both sides, and costly damage to Ukraine infrastructure, a population that had to face additional winters and hardship in war ravaged areas. NATO's Stoltenberg from Norway, leaders of northern Nordic and Baltic countries, the UK, could take that position without having to face the hardship of the war. NATO had to be re-formed under a new name and new structure  following the collapse of the Soviet Union, with wariness about the possibility of centuries old since 1700 UK and Nordic historical adversarial relationship with Russia casting a shadow over that organization, and embroiling the US in conflicts not of its own choice or of wise leadership. This is the root cause of the Ukraine war. It would have been best to completely restructure NATO and give it a new name without Northern European nations leading it. Principles matter once soviet communism was no longer there NATO formed for its expansionism in 1950's had served it's purpose. Rasmussen from Denmark and Stoltenberg from Norway led the organization for the last decade and half from 2009-2014 and 2014 to 2025, with backing from Obama/Merkel for most of the period of the war in Ukraine. Also most of the period NATO expanded to Russian borders happened under Northern European leaders from Spain, Britain and Nordics (Solana, Robertson, Scheffer, Rasmussen and Stoltenberg) and the organization NATO getting the northern European slant based on historical adversarial relationship of Britain and Russia since 1700- for no other reason than the British wanting to protect its large Empire and commerce in India which in the 18th and 19th century included most of Asia. Under Robertson the UK Defense Secretary much of this transformation into turning NATO into something anti-Russian happened which was primarily because of British and Nordic perceptions of Russia as an adversary. Robertson added the following countries at the Prague Summit in 2002 to NATO- the Baltics, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Russia faced internal upheaval in those years and Yeltsin in resigned in 1999, Putin was elected in 2000. It is clear that Russia had suffered severe economic hardship in that period and Putin's first goal in 2002 was to stabilize the economy.  It could be said that this turning NATO over to UK and Nordics was a huge mistake considering that Russia was still the largest nuclear power after the US, and British policy was now determining US policy. And Britain's Robertson/NATO should not have involved itself in the Afghanistan war using Article 5, as the US could have handled this alone and limited that engagement. It got US involved in another conflict, conflict with Russia that was to come in Ukraine on the side of the Baltics and Ukraine, without US clearly understanding what the roots of that war was about and implied confrontation with Russia 20 years after the Prague Summit in 2002 under George Bush junior. The incompetence of Bush and Obama/Merkel laid the seeds of the Ukraine war in 2022 following Robertson, Rasmussen, Stoltenberg, small Nordic nations and Britain creating a conflict that did not need to happen, with loss of hundreds of thousands of lives of Russian speaking fraternal peoples of both Russia and Ukraine. The Republican sentiment under DJT of the tragedy of such huge losses of young people, and desire to end this loss of life, can nowhere be seen in bellicose talk in northern European nations, that take the US for granted to fight their wars.  The wisdom of Washington, Lincoln and TR/FDR clearly caution in getting involved in European centuries old animosities. For the US it meant in practical terms that it could no longer carry out the Monroe Doctrine essential for peace and good governance in the western hemisphere as only a Russia desperate to make its views known about NATO would interfere in the western hemisphere against US assertion of the Monroe Doctrine with the US Navy. Instead drug trafficking gangs took over Latin American countries and created a flow of fentanyl and millions of people through migrant traffickers across the US southern border. As America has expressed its concern for loss of Russian and Ukrainian men in the war for the first time under DJT Russia has distanced itself from Venezuela, Mexico and Latin America. The loss of hundreds of thousands of young Americans to fentanyl is a shared tragedy with the loss of hundreds of thousands of young Russians and Ukrainians in the last decade. How reliable are Northern European countries when it comes to protecting the eastern seaboard of the US with the acquisition of Greenland? It is a policy pursued by presidents since the Alaska Acquisition from Russia. By Seward, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman and DJT. Denmark the land where NATO secretary general Rasmussen was from followed by Stoltenberg from Norway  (for 15 of the years of the war in Ukraine 2010-2025) the US efforts to protect its eastern seaboard are rebuffed by both Denmark and Norway, and the US presented in a negative light as an imperialist power in the face of Danish East India Company's  colonial attitude since 1700 clearly imitating the colonial British East India company.  It shows Northern European nations looking out for themselves not for the US, and embroiling the US in their wars at the cost of the entire western hemisphere being destabilized. The population of UK, Denmark and Norway, Baltics is far less than the Mumbai, Shanghai, Sao Paulo , Berlin and Tokyo regions. Should the views of a small population in northern Europe of 2% of the total determine the future of US, Europe, China, India, Brazil, and other parts of the world with 5 billion people the 98%, when issues of war and nuclear conflict, nuclear buildup, the western hemisphere destabilized with drug trafficking gangs running rampant in countries, divide the world in opposing blocs, when the wellbeing of most of the world's people in Asia and Latin America, Africa is at stake by establishing a essential degree of cooperation by all sides. The US under DJT has chosen a wise policy of cooperation over conflict -with China, with Russia, with all the major powers, and with smaller powers. Reading the wisdom contained in the writings of Washington, Lincoln, TR/FDR confirms it is clearly the wise choice. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Medvedev says he fully realizes how much has yet to be done, and Putin says it is extremely important for everyone together to continue the course that has already been taken and has justified itself. And after these words and more the new President is sworn in in Russia. Medvedev says that he will be working hard to improve living standards, education and medical care, and modernizing Russia's narrow economy. Words like to continue the course which justified itself and fully realizing how much has yet to be done have a lot of meaning. Consider the situation in Russia in the last Yeltsin years, disheartened Russian people, poverty, shortening life spans and daily existence difficult for young, average person on the street, pensioner and old people alike. And still Russia has a narrow economy based on growing price of commodities and needs to develop a balanced economy, and the living standards are still only catching up in the rural areas some of which are only now getting electricity.

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
Social unrest grows in Russia as oil falls to $36 a barrrel and Russian growth slows from 8% to the point where its entering arecession and layoffs and salary cuts are taking place at many companies. In the Siberian town of Barnaul large protests took place when the authorites cancelled subsidized public transportation tickets for 200,000 pensioners. The government has adraft law that requires companies to inform the government about impending layoffs and salary cuts. And there is agradual devaluation of the ruble so that there is less adverse reaction in the economy. THe ruble has lost 111% of its value since it reached its peak in August. The government has required restraint in covering the crisis and no mention of the word crisis or reference to social unrest as there is considerable fear in the government and public's mind from the previous crisis days when the ruble collapsed under President Yeltsin causing wwidespread poverty and social disruption and economic failures. Strikes by migrant workers in the Urals city of Yektarinburg. The governments approach is to provide some kind of ressure outlet and let things cool off by reversing actions like the decision to let pensioners use their discounted public transit tickets. As a result of the downturn 7500 firms have informed the government they intend to layoff people and 207,000 workers have had working hours reduced since October 2008. And the government is drawing up alist of significant enterprises needing a bailout....

LyrArc Article Gist
Steven Lee Myers provides an exceptionally good report from Russia on the 2014 Sochi Olympics. He describes an effort by the Putin administration in Russia to develop Sochi which extends for 90 miles along the Black Sea, the only subtropical seashore in Russia. Here Myers interviews Pakhomov, a Putin supporter, who is Mayor of Sochi, to get a picture of how Putin supporters see this effort. Pakhomov says this part of Russia was never developed and foreigners have a poor view of Russia, with one westerner telling him that Russia had little except vodka and bears. For the first time the entire Sochi areas has seen a massive infrastructure effort with roads, railways and a new airport. Myers gets a different picture from Yulia Naberezhnaya, a scientist who is a Putin critic and environmental leader in the Western Caucusus, who he interviews after meeting at a bus stop in Sochi. Naberezhnaya heads Environmental Watch of the North Caucusus which sees the environmental laws being ignored in construction work. The country is divided with nationalistic feeling running high before the Olympics, and a friend of Naberezhnaya finding herself on the opposite side with work in the security services. She warns her to be careful- something Naberezhnaya says has Kafkesque overtones. Myers also meets Boris Nemtsov, a senior official in the Yeltsin government, who participated in street protests during the recent elections in Russia, and is critical of the money spent in this Olympics. Estimates of the money spent run as high as $51 billion, in comparison the Olympics in Beijing, China cost about $40 billion. Dmitri Chernyshenko, president of the Sochi Olympics Organizing Committee sees the project as one that unites the nation, while critics such as Nemtsov see it as a huge overspending and corruption favoring Putin's friends in the business community. Myers is acting Moscow Bureau Chief for the NYT and has done extensive interviewing for this report, including an interview with Vladimir Yakunin, head of Soviet Railways. Yakunin says his company's investment of $1.3 billion will take 20 years to recover but puts it on the scale of the Trans-Siberian Railway build by Czar Nicholas II, which helped bring Russia its current borders reaching to the Far East. And yet the question of cost is never far from people's minds, coming at a time when growth is slowing in Russia- emerging markets currency values incluing the ruble are declining and they are having a tough time attracting foreign investment. A member of the International Olympic Committee, Gian-Franco Kasper, is reported to have told Swiss SRF radio that about a third of the spending on Sochi was lost because of corruption and excessive costs....

LyrArc Article Gist
Elected to the Politburo in 1980, Gorbachev became president of USSR in 1985. In the six year period to 1991 he launched a movement to free the USSR from the rigid constraints of communist party rule called Perestroika to improve productivity, freedoms and quality of life. He came from a peasant family with Ukrainian origins and was born in 1931 during the period of upheaval in Russia. The rapid removal of Soviet rule was something Russia was not able to adapt to in the early years with no experience in democratic process. By 2000 after drop in life expectancy and fall in the standard of living Mr. Putin emerged as president.  Russia's economy recovered under Putin's three terms till the miscalculations in the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, that were itself a result of a sense that Russia had lost something with the fall of the Soviet Union and the advancement of NATO and the European Union. Gorbachev's sense in his memoirs was that Russia would do best under democracy. Even in 2017 he wrote that Russia and its people were "ready for a real multiparty system, fair elections and a regular rotation of government." Yet he was too much of an optimist and not enough hands on to grasp that Russia was a large economy and safeguards had to be put in place for the rule of law to prevent lawless elements that could control companies, safeguards for the vulnerable sections of society such as pensioners and older people, and limited self government through elected assemblies and parliaments were needed for a decade before democracy to take roots. Gorbachev's knowledge of American and British democracies, constitutions and parliaments and their evolution over centuries was non existent, with little contact and education of this sort under the Czar or Soviets. The democracies in Germany and Japan were established with American power and extensive education, the Marshall Plan, and unlimited imports by the US from Japan to prevent economic catastrophes of the kind experienced by the Weimar Republic in Germany in the 1920's. No plan from western aid and assistance, limited self government of the people was introduced as training ground as in India. In India the British introduced limited self-government or Swaraj in the 1930's with elected assemblies in Indian states, in the pattern of Dominion states such as Canada and Australia. Mohandas Gandhi negotiated the rights of indentured Indians in South Africa in this arrangement and studied British law and constitutions. This led to the catastrophic failure of the rule of law in Russia after 1979, lawless elements emerging under Yeltsin  that controlled companies and the state, high unemployment, failure of the economy, and drop in life expectancy between 1979 and 2005. How this led to the Putin years and now led to the war in Ukraine is covered in more detail under the Lyrarc article on Gorbachev and how he is seen in Germany. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Reports by David Sanger and other reporters from the NYT on the situation in Ukraine as seen from the US, Russian, European, and Ukrainian sides. Russian president Putin sees Ukraine as part of the Russian cultural and economic sphere with deep ties to Ukraine in its history. The western parts of Ukraine near Poland and near the capital Kiev see their future more in relation to other Eastern European countries that have moved closer to or joined the European Union such as Poland and the Baltic republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. It is not clear even to advisors to the Russian government what Mr. Putin's intentions and plans are. Russia has not yet recognized the two breakaway republics in Eastern Ukraine based in Donestsk.  Some of the key points in Ukraine's recent history- one needs to know this because Ukraine has a difficult history in its relations with Poland/Lithuania and with Russia alternating over centuries, with neither relationship providing the kind of government that would have helped Ukraine's people. Formed only in 1991 the Republic of Ukraine has a long history since 1500 of being part of Poland and Lithuania, and later part of Russia, with some parts of Ukraine under the Austrian Hapsburgs till 1900. Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union in the 1920's to the 1950's in one phase in which it suffered badly with collectivization of agriculture under Communist Soviet leadership and famines. In the second phase of Soviet rule after the 1950's Ukraine made a dramatic recovery as Krushchev assumed control with Leonid Brezhnev who was from Ukraine. After 1964 Brezhnev ran the the Soviet Union till 1984 and this was a good period for Ukraine. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1990 and Russian leader Yeltsin separated Ukraine and Belarus to go their own ways as separate countries from Russia. For 1990-2000 Ukraine did badly losing about 60% of its GDP, a situation also experienced by Russia with economic instability. Russia recovered under Putin, yet Ukraine has struggled since because of mismanagement under different governments and widespread entrenched corruption.  Governments alternated in the period 2000 to 2020 between ones friendly to Russia and friendly to Poland and European Union. This happened in 2004 and again with protests in 2014. The protests in 2014 in Kiev and Lviv led to a government that favored closer ties with EU and NATO. It is this pendulum swing that is Ukraine's and Eastern Europe's experience in the 20th century and it continues into the 21st. What Russia wants is for Ukraine to not be a place for NATO operations, even if it is not allied to Russia after Russian president Putin was disappointed with the Russian allied government's performance under Yanukovich in the 2000-2014 period with corruption and mismanagement. France in the 16th and to 18th century is described by Brendan Simms of Cambridge in his new book on Europe, as needing the external danger for unity, and unity to meet external danger. This could be true also for Russia as the danger posed by NATO helps bring unity to Russia. And this could be a way to unify Russia and provide it with the confidence that it seeks in its effort for parity with the European Union and the US, China in the 21st century.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
William Burns, a former Deputy Secretary of State, and a former ambassador to Russia 2005-2008, looks at the U.S. and European Union relationship with Russia following the expulsion of Russian spies in 2018. He says the U.S. and the European Union should take strong action, yet hopes this is a passing phase so that a healthier relationship can be built with Russia in the long run through diplomatic channels. Expressing views expressed by former president Obama and other experts, Burns says Russia lacks the alliances and broader support that the U.S. and European Union have, and is much smaller than the larger economies of the Western alliance. Under Putin a strong interventionist position has made Russia look better at home but may not be the best for Russia in the long run, says Burns.   Burns calls for stronger sanctions on the economic elite and business leaders under president Putin. Yet the sanctions have not deterred president Putin and a long run solution needs to be found, including issues such as Ukraine and issues that affect the Russian economy so that the change in relations since 2014 can be reversed. After the Berlin Wall collapsed hopes for integration of the Russian economy into the West were raised yet were not realized for Russia in the years following the Yeltsin government and the Russian economy suffered, first during that period and then during emerging market crises. Russian disillusionment with the West was followed by a more inward looking economy under Putin to help stabilize the Russian economy, accepting devaluation of the ruble to make the Russian economy more competitive in a period of low oil prices. Foreign investment collapsed following the Ukraine crisis but the Russian economy adapted to the shock from oil prices. This was followed by efforts to preserve these gains with an interventionist policy that made the Putin administration look better at home and win popular support with strong action in Crimea and Ukraine. This interventionist policy has played out too far with the meddling in U.S. and European elections creating a backlash that is now taking place. With the European Union, having a traditional policy of restraint and good relations with Russia, openly questioning Russian policy under Putin. Much of that period when Russia responded first to the collapse of the Berlin Wall with the collapse of the Russian economy, and in the following decade facing emerging market crises and collapse of foreign investment -which created a more inward looking Russia under Putin in his third term- is shown in Lyrarc.com. In some ways the Russian response in Ukraine, the effort to bolster popular support at home in elections, and the interventionist approach are linked to the efforts to find a Russian response to the economic crises Russia faced since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Seen in this way a shift to better relations is still possible as a broader perspective is gained.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Steve Lee Myers reporting from Moscow and St. Petersburg, Jo Becker from Washington and London, and Jim Yardley from Nicosia, Cyprus, provide this extraordinary and exceptional report on the rise of a small group of friends, mostly from Mr. Putin's time in St. Petersburg, into a new sort of oligarchy replacing the old one under Mr. Yeltsin. This includes more familiar names such as Sechin at Rosneft, but also less familiar names such as Mr. Kovalchuk, chairman of Bank Rossiya, which owns major television and radio stations and newspapers in Russia. M. Kovalchuk is described as having acquired many of these media properties at a fraction of their real value. Bank Rossiya assumed management of assets of Gazprombank, and Gazprom bank purchased Gazprom Media with five television and a number of radio stations for $166 million, when Medvedev, a Putin associate put the value at $7.5 billion 2 years following the acquisition, according to this report. Other assets acquired in this manner include Channel 5 and Ren TV, giving Putin's inner circle control of the media and reducing any critical or different views on issues facing Russia. Many of Gazprom's assets were transferred to Bank Rossiya, say critics, including insurer Sogaz which was acquired for $100 million, later valued at $2 billion, says the report. Names on the this inner circle also include Yakunin, head of Russian Railways, also include names like Fursenko and Timchenko. Most of the people in this inner circle are now targets of western sanctions. Missing in this report is mention that that this inner circle of the second term as president replaces the larger circle of the first terms as president and prime minister, with Putin benefitting from experts and advisors in the first terms. That circle included Finance minister Kudrin known for his successful management of the economy, and others who left the administration after flawed parliamentary elections. Even prime minister Medvedev is not mentioned as part of this inner circle, suggesting a degree of isolation which could be perilous for the Russian economy as it deprives the Russian president of different opinion and useful advice. This is a pattern seen in many emerging market countries which experience corruption during the period of industrial development. A pattern seen also in China under the Communist Party. And in Venezuela where a new Bolivarist class was created. In emerging market democracies such as India and Turkey the problem is also present, except that in India the recent open election led to the ouster of the Congress led government with many cases of corruption in its second term. A similiar election led to a new government in Indonesia, showing that there is another way beyond the Putin Way. Behind the protests in Hong Kong and in Russia, as well as in India, were the huge gaps in wealth and the growing inequality, corruption, lack of responsiveness of ruling governments. In Russia this takes another dimension with efforts to control the internet and media, and efforts to spread this style of democracy. This has created problems in the Putin government's relations with western nations having open societies and free media, and unwilling to accept a distorted model of democracy. Another less noticed aspect of the evolution of these emerging markets is that upto a point development proceeds even accelerates even in the presence of corruption, and then reaches a point where development and growth slows with problems of corruption, mismanagement of resources, declining productivity, economic and political errors, or unfavorable external environment. India faced this problem in 2012-2013, Russia is likely to face this in 2015, and China faces the prospect of growth slowdown by 2016. This feature of emerging markets also reminds one of the frequently quoted old English saying by Lord Acton- "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." An idea also attributed to William Pitt the Elder who said- "unlimited power tends to corrupt the minds of those who possess it." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
It looks likely that after ignoring the chances of the former Iraqi army disappearing in the war and becoming insurgents the Bush administration military has now embraced them in the form of Awakening groups in Anbar province, initially with tribal groups with ageold traditions predating even Islam but now more dangerously in Baghdad itself with former members of the Baathist military. The tribal groups have limited loyalties but are not friendly to the Shiite led government and fight among themselves. But the Baghdad Sunnis who have already suffered from the Shiite led national police and militas are hostile to the Shiite led government. This is why the movement is growing so quickly as the war against the Americans is turning into an effort by Sunnis of all kinds of politics to turn their attention to the eventual conflict that they see with the Shiites. These Awakening Groups are numbering some 65000 and could quickly reach 100,000 and are watched suspiciously by the SHiite led army and police who refuse to integrate them into the army and police making them more likely to look to money from elsewhere once the Americans stop paying them. The Americans for their part are paying them $300 per month which will cost the US military budget some 234 million dollars and save a lot of American lives and give the US already convinced that this is quite possibly a civil war situation not entirely of its own making , an opportunity to have cover for a withdrawal that shows honorable intentions to Sunni and Shiite alike. The American officers clearly say that once they withdraw there won't be anybody to administer the contracts. Would other Sunni countries like the Saudis step in with economic aid. This is a possibility. This may be why some Iraqis are actually now going back home from overseas, adefacto partition is already taking place, And the Awakening groups only provide the safety to Sunnis in their Baghdad neighborhoods. from the Shiite led police and army. Why would'nt the US simply recognize the defacto situation call it partition or anything else, its the defacto situation. Is it because that leaves most of the oil in Shiite or Kurdish areas, Basra and Kirkuk? But in effect thats what the defacto situation is because most of the oil production as figures show is from the South Oil Company in the Shiite south. See the link to the recent article WSJ Dec 13, 2007, on oil production numbers from the South Oil Company and in the north. Of 2.5 million barrels 2 million barrels came from South Oil and 500,000 from the north. Not much of the oil money is going to the Sunni areas anyway and the national government members are not willing to even meet with the Sunni representatives in some areas. From the larger standpoint of oil supply in world markets and oil prices this means that the current increase supply into world markets will see two new phases. For a while there will be good supply as the insurgency settles down to prepare for a sunni led government in sunni areas under cover of US protection and withdrawal because violence against pipelines ect will diminish. The when the US withdraws this production will decline for a period as the sunnis and shiites form their own separate governments. After that as peace settles down on the region in a kind of coexistence of sunni and shiite governments oil production in Iraq will see a modernization and significant increase. As the new Shhite government will need a lot of money to fund reconstruction of its areas Iraq may hav an incentive to really bump up production like the Russians did afterthe Yeltsin chaotic years. Note that of the $2.4 billion oil investment budget for 2007, only 30% of this was spent in 2007 according to the link WSJ Dec 13, 2007, even though the industry is using dilapidated and old equipment and facilities and badly needs investment, so the impact of a real modernization and investment once the country's Shiiites and Sunnis have their own governments and coexist and peace settles in the region would be huge increase in oil supply. In this sense this is why its been so difficult to understand oil prices and supplies. Twisters have been thrown into the works for the Iraq area because of the civil war situaton and for Iran the nuclear situation and the rhetoric simply complicated matters even as Iranian production was declining and its internal demand growing. ...

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. ...