Africans 'under siege' in Moscow

[frigidmagi]

BBC

Nearly 60% of black and African people living in Russia's capital Moscow have been physically assaulted in racially motivated attacks, says a new study.

Africans working or studying in the city live in constant fear of attack, according to the report by the Moscow Protestant Chaplaincy.

A quarter of 200 people surveyed said they had been assaulted more than once. Some 80% had been verbally abused.

But the number of assaults was down from the MPC's last survey in 2002.

The report's clear conclusion was that Africans living in Russia exist in a state of virtual siege, says the BBC's Rupert Wingfield Hayes in Moscow.

Extreme violence

Many of the African respondents said they:

* Avoided using the Moscow metro
* Were also careful to avoid crowded public places
* Did not go out on Russian national holidays or on days when there were football matches

Many of the attacks on Africans were pre-meditated and extremely violent, the report found.

One Nigerian migrant interviewed by the BBC had been repeatedly stabbed in the back and then shot.

Another man said his attacker had attempted to remove his scalp.

Officially there are some 10,000 Africans living in Moscow, but far more are believed to live there illegally - many as economic migrants.

The Moscow Protestant Chaplaincy is an English-speaking interdenominational Christian congregation that has ministered to Moscow's foreign community since 1962.

Read some of your comments about this story:

As a foreigner you will never feel safe in this country.
Shairaz, St. Petersburg, Russia

I'm Asian, not black, but that was one of the main reasons why I left Moscow years ago. I did hear and see the violent assaults on just any black people in Moscow, and our school actually told all the black students not to come in for two weeks around Hitler's birthday for feared attacks. I've lived in many different parts of the world but Moscow certainly was the worst one in that respect. Such a shame.
B., Moscow, Russia

It is dangerous to use Moscow tube for all kinds of minorities, not only for Africans. Moscow hooligans point out different targets from the crowd. While visiting Moscow I try to look alike typical muscovite to avoid attention attraction. If you are in a crowd it's safe to use the tube and any other public areas.
Kirill, Rostov-on-Don, Russia

However sad it is, I have to admit that these facts are true. We are in 21st century, but still attitude towards non Russian people here in Moscow remains the same. Foreigners at least are treated with suspicion; at most they are attacked, bullied. I don't see that many Africans on the streets, you can hardly find them in public places. Even though I know that many study in Moscow. When you see Africans in Moscow, they always go in large groups of four or five people, never alone. Seeing a black person here is still exotic. Ordinary people just stare at them, but there are groups of youngsters, who think that Africans should not be here. Listening to all of this horrible stories on radio, TV about Africans being attacked, I am surprised why there are any who choose to come to Moscow.
Svetlana, Moscow, Russia

For me it comes down to one thing, these people are living in the past. We welcome every foreigner including Europeans back home. The only way we can improve our own communities, we come and learn, then take back our experiences back home. Unless someone realises this, tough time are ahead of us.
O., Moscow, Russia

Really? I lived in Moscow for four years and never once witnessed the subject of the report. It was something reported in the foreign press which mysteriously I and my colleagues never saw. Like most everything else reported on Russia, it was not true. However, I have seen rampant and very unpleasant prejudice twice in my life once in Nova Scotia and once in Salisbury in Wiltshire.
Michael Hockney, Vancouver, Canada

While I didn't live in Moscow, I did live in St. Petersburg for the winter of 2005 on a study abroad trip. Even then, the racial violence was startling... people were being attacked on the streets just for the colour of their skin. The anti-caucasus sentiment as spread to a nationalistic furore against any foreigners, students included. There was a contingent of African students at the university where I studied, and they all lived in the dormitory in the same building as the classes. They all travelled together if they had to go anywhere, while I felt fine walking alone in the dark winter days. I felt so guilty for feeling safe inside my white skin, and so horrified that innocents were being attacked just because they were there. This is a problem that the West has roundly ignored for too many years.
Trista, Virginia Beach, VA, USA

I included the comments because I felt they were almost as importent as the story itself.

A little addition from me here. For years people have been chattering about the danger of fascism retaking power. Mostly when they say it they're staring at the United States. During that whole time they have been ignoring a pair of nations that have grown increasingly xenophobic and militantly nationalistic (When I call you militantly nationalistic it may be time to rethink your stance, considering I call myself a right wing nationalist). These nations have weak or no democratic institutions and are looking to wipe the stain of humiliation from their nations. If you are truely worried about fascism, you should be worried about Russia and China.

[fgalkin]

CHINA?! What in the Emperor's name are you one about? What "stain of humiliation"?

Now, Russia is a different story entirely. The nazis are not as big as some people would portray (these aren't all Nazis, all Russians are extremely racist), but they're not small, either. And it's going to get only worse with the current bunch of thieves and corruptioners in power.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[frigidmagi]

CHINA?!

Did I stutter?

Laughing What in the Emperor's name are you one about?

Emperor? Ohh, improper Comrade, the People's Representative would like to have a chat with you about invoking the name of the People's enemies so lightly. Now get back to work, we got money to make!

What "stain of humiliation"?

From talking to Chinese students over at ASU and such, they are taught pretty much from the Chinese equalivent of kindergarten that they suffered a period of humiliation at the hands of foreign powers (western and Japan) and that humiliation will not be wiped clean until China is completely and utterly united. That can't happen until Taiwan at the very least is again under the control of the central government. Although some of the more extreme say similar things about Mongolia.

[Cynical Cat]

Please. The Chinese have all sorts of horrible authoritarianism going on but fascism? No.

Where are the classical elements of fascism with a new right wing movement and its gangs of thugs acting to suppress workers and minority groups? The classic devil's alliance between the right wing establishment and the new right as was seen in Germany, Italy, and Spain? One sees such elements in Russia and even in the US with its vigilante anti illegal immigrant militias, anti-tax zealots, racists, and health care wackos but not in China.

[frigidmagi]

Please. The Chinese have all sorts of horrible authoritarianism going on but fascism? No.

Y'all are paying to much attention to the old men in Beijing and not enough to the new guys out in the provinces. The ones who are going to replace those tired scared old men sooner or later. Is the Beijing central government fascist? No. Good thing I never said that they were huh? I said that these are the two nations most in danger. You'll note, in danger. Not inevitable. Not are currently. In danger.

Out in the provinces you have do indeed have growing connections between politicians and businessmen. You do have racial conflicts and growing nationalism. In short you have a up-coming generation that could very well tilt into fascism.

[Cynical Cat]

Needs more than connections between politicians and businessmen to be fascist. Ditto for the racism. China lacks the social unrest and the alliance between old guard conservatives and new wave bully boys and street thugs that is characteristic of fascism. If businessmen being in bed with politicians and racism were enough to call a government fascist then the British Empire and Gilded Age America would qualify.

[frigidmagi]

There is plenty of racism and unrest in China. This is the nation that has had thousands of riots a year remember?

As for your definition, old guard conservatives are not necessarily required for the formation of a fascist government. They do make it easier and more likely. In the case of China what are seeing is an alliance between up coming politicians, business men and street thugs. This has the potential in my view to become fascist.

Like I said the danger is certainly there.

[Cynical Cat]

Sorry frigid, I don't see it. The old guard isn't losing power or control. The organs of state security are still sufficient to crush opposition. China is corrupt, authoritarian, and brutal but its not heading toward fascism.

[fgalkin]

There is plenty of racism and unrest in China. This is the nation that has had thousands of riots a year remember?

As for your definition, old guard conservatives are not necessarily required for the formation of a fascist government. They do make it easier and more likely. In the case of China what are seeing is an alliance between up coming politicians, business men and street thugs. This has the potential in my view to become fascist.

Like I said the danger is certainly there.

Unrest in China? Where? Street thugs in China? Where? Any sort of idelogical basis for "fascism"? Where?

And no, nationalism does not count. If it did, USA would be the world's pre-eminent fascist nation.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[frigidmagi]

Unrest in China? Where?

here, here, here and also here.

Not to mention if you bothered to do a search on the message board you would have found several stories posted by me over the years on various riots and civil unrests in China.

Street thugs in China?

I'm sorry Fima, but is that a joke? If not we can start with the guys who oversaw slave rings and beat people into submission.

Now I'll grant the presence of street thugs is nothing. Every nation that is developed enough has them, they're a sad and unpleasant fact of urban life. It's when officals feel okay to hire them that you got problems.

Any sort of idelogical basis for "fascism"? Where?

Again, keep in mind I'm not talking about the Beijing government. I'm talking about the folks who will replace them and the boys and girls on the ground. You got an belief in regaining lost land, increasing xenophobia and no democratic institutions to speak of. These all up the odds of a fascist government in the future.

[fgalkin]

Unrest in China? Where?

here,

I thought I asked about China proper. As in Han Chinese. Next, you'll consider China facsist because the Tibetans are rioting again.

here, here and also here.

Two of those are about the same event, by the way. Did you even read them or simply grab them from a google search?

In any case, if we consider those as evidence of unrest leading to fascism, we might as well say USA is far along that path, what with RNC and WTO protests.

China has a lot of ethnic strife, and unrest related to specific issues in a certain place. That does not translate into a nationwide common cause, a dissatisfaction with the current government (most Chinese LOVE the government in Beijing) or a desire to change the system.

Not to mention if you bothered to do a search on the message board you would have found several stories posted by me over the years on various riots and civil unrests in China.

Not all riots are alike. I have seen NOTHING suggesting any kind of serious indication of a desire to fundamentally change the system. Unlike, say, Russia.

Street thugs in China?

I'm sorry Fima, but is that a joke? If not we can start with the guys who oversaw slave rings and beat people into submission.

Huh? Street thugs? Where? These are common criminals. If they're hiding jackboots, brown shirts, or party manifestos do let me know. Because, they seem like common criminals to me, not even like the Nazi gangs in Russia that are responsible for the article in the OP.

Now I'll grant the presence of street thugs is nothing. Every nation that is developed enough has them, they're a sad and unpleasant fact of urban life. It's when officals feel okay to hire them that you got problems.

If we're using corrupt officials as indicators of fascism, all of Africa is a pack of goose-stepping Nazis.

Any sort of idelogical basis for "fascism"? Where?

Again, keep in mind I'm not talking about the Beijing government. I'm talking about the folks who will replace them and the boys and girls on the ground. You got an belief in regaining lost land, increasing xenophobia and no democratic institutions to speak of. These all up the odds of a fascist government in the future.

Do you have any indication that "the folks who will replace them and the boys and girls on the ground" have any desire to turn fascist?

And I think you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the Taiwan dispute if you think it's somehow not a part of China.

Finally, the lack of democratic institutions somehow helping the rise of fascism? Did you get that from a CNN "analyst"? Do re-read your history on the rise of fascism, even if it is only Wikipedia.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[General Havoc]

Personally, I don't agree with Frigid that China is at imminent risk for a bout of fascism. While the state is corporatist and corrupt, I don't believe it exhibits all the necessary signs for a fascist regime. I will mention however that I absolutely adore how every time the talk turns to fascism, people feel the need to trod out the tired old "WELL THE US IS FASCIST!!!!111!" argument.

If we're using corrupt officials as indicators of fascism, all of Africa is a pack of goose-stepping Nazis.

Nazism and fascism are not the same thing. The former is a specific variation on the latter. Do re-read your own history thereon before you sling stones at others.

China has a lot of ethnic strife, and unrest related to specific issues in a certain place. That does not translate into a nationwide common cause, a dissatisfaction with the current government (most Chinese LOVE the government in Beijing) or a desire to change the system.

Whether or not the above is true (and it is true that the ethnic strife is related to specific issues in a certain place), I think it's a far cry to claim that most Chinese love the government in Beijing. That's not to say there's revolutions impending, or massive disaffection, but blanket statements of societal-level adoration for a distant and corrupt central government are just stupid. If most Chinese LOVE the central government, as you say, then why has civil unrest in China increased thirty-fold over the last five years (by the admission of the government itself)?

Unrest in China? Where?

Did you completely miss the multi-hundred-thousand man riots that took place during the economic crunch (and for economic reasons, I grant)? The riots following the great Earthquake? Obviously these too were related to specific incidents and grievances, but seriously man... if you think there is no unrest in China, you might want to go read up on current events and come back in a while.

Most people are generally indifferent to their government no matter the type. I find it amusing that you're so quick to denounce the US as being full of fascists while ascribing absolute happiness and joy to a billion and a quarter people who live under a regime that takes enormous pains to ensure that their opinion is not heard.

And I think you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the Taiwan dispute if you think it's somehow not a part of China.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the Taiwan dispute if you think that it being part or not a part of China is somehow the crux of the question. Geographically it is plainly not a part of China (being an island and all), but that's hardly the point either. The Taiwan dispute is a bit more complex than Pro-Beijing apologists would indicate.

[fgalkin]

Personally, I don't agree with Frigid that China is at imminent risk for a bout of fascism. While the state is corporatist and corrupt, I don't believe it exhibits all the necessary signs for a fascist regime. I will mention however that I absolutely adore how every time the talk turns to fascism, people feel the need to trod out the tired old "WELL THE US IS FASCIST!!!!111!" argument.

In other news, we learn that some people have poor reading comprehension. News at 11!

If we're using corrupt officials as indicators of fascism, all of Africa is a pack of goose-stepping Nazis.

Nazism and fascism are not the same thing. The former is a specific variation on the latter. Do re-read your own history thereon before you sling stones at others.

How is that relevant to a figure of speech? Oh wait, it's not.

China has a lot of ethnic strife, and unrest related to specific issues in a certain place. That does not translate into a nationwide common cause, a dissatisfaction with the current government (most Chinese LOVE the government in Beijing) or a desire to change the system.

Whether or not the above is true (and it is true that the ethnic strife is related to specific issues in a certain place), I think it's a far cry to claim that most Chinese love the government in Beijing.

"Love" might be too strong a term (as you may have noticed, I wasn't going for precise definitions in my post), but they are, in general, happy with it.

That's not to say there's revolutions impending, or massive disaffection, but blanket statements of societal-level adoration for a distant and corrupt central government are just stupid. If most Chinese LOVE the central government, as you say, then why has civil unrest in China increased thirty-fold over the last five years (by the admission of the government itself)?

Liberalisation on the part of said government. 20 years ago, the protests would have been crushed with tanks. Now, they are not. The fact that they are directed against specific local issues, rather than the central government might have something to do with it, too. Was that a trick question?

Unrest in China? Where?

Did you completely miss the multi-hundred-thousand man riots that took place during the economic crunch (and for economic reasons, I grant)? The riots following the great Earthquake? Obviously these too were related to specific incidents and grievances, but seriously man... if you think there is no unrest in China, you might want to go read up on current events and come back in a while.

Wake me up when there are protests against the system itself, like there are in Russia.

Most people are generally indifferent to their government no matter the type. I find it amusing that you're so quick to denounce the US as being full of fascists while ascribing absolute happiness and joy to a billion and a quarter people who live under a regime that takes enormous pains to ensure that their opinion is not heard.

Except that's not what I said. You might want to re-read my post before you end up looking silly.

And I think you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the Taiwan dispute if you think it's somehow not a part of China.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the Taiwan dispute if you think that it being part or not a part of China is somehow the crux of the question. Geographically it is plainly not a part of China (being an island and all), but that's hardly the point either. The Taiwan dispute is a bit more complex than Pro-Beijing apologists would indicate.

Naturally. The issue is which of the two Chinese governments is legitimate, the one in Beijing or the one in Taipei.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[frigidmagi]

China is at imminent risk for a bout of fascism

Where are you getting imminent from? I'm not claiming imminent risk.

[General Havoc]

In other news, we learn that some people have poor reading comprehension. News at 11!

A discussion about the relative risk of fascist tendancies in China and I'm counting three different citations of how the US is a fascist state by one definition or another within the first eight posts. It strikes me as odd that the conversation always goes there whenever something like this is discussed.

How is that relevant to a figure of speech? Oh wait, it's not.

It's relevant to you claiming someone is ignorant and then turning around and making a flawed comparison. Do not blame me if people take your comparisons as evidence that you might not know what the hell you're talking about.

"Love" might be too strong a term (as you may have noticed, I wasn't going for precise definitions in my post), but they are, in general, happy with it.

I'm certain they're content with it for the most part, as is only reasonable, but I'm not sure where you're getting the info that people are happy by and large with the government. I mean they might well be, but it's not like anyone can tell, what with the lack of objective data or polling within the country. The way I see it, the best I can say is that they are simply not annoyed enough to do something about it on a large scale.

Liberalisation on the part of said government. 20 years ago, the protests would have been crushed with tanks. Now, they are not. The fact that they are directed against specific local issues, rather than the central government might have something to do with it, too. Was that a trick question?

I question the degree to which the government has liberalized. 20 years ago the government was threatened with what they saw (rightly or wrongly) as a threat to the national order, and they crushed it with tanks. The protests today are directed against specific local issues, it's true, and as a result the government does not see the need to act with such harshness. I don't think however that indicates that the government has liberalized. Nobody has challenged them in the way that they felt themselves to be challenged back then.

Obviously there's plenty of reasons why people might not do so, one of which is the threat of being killed with tanks, another of which is that they feel things are all right as they stand. I don't know which is the most prevalent, but in a country the size of China, I'd imagine there's plenty of both.

Wake me up when there are protests against the system itself, like there are in Russia.

Given what happened in 1989, I would not expect to see large-scale protests against the system itself. That doesn't mean that everyone is happy with the way things are running in China.

Except that's not what I said. You might want to re-read my post before you end up looking silly.

Funny, I was gonna say the same thing...

Naturally. The issue is which of the two Chinese governments is legitimate, the one in Beijing or the one in Taipei.

That's not the crux of the issue either. That reduces the question to a blanket either/or, which, while important, is far from the reality of what's going on. It's true that both governments claim absolute legitimacy over the whole of both China and Taiwan. But Taiwan is de-facto independent, and has been for decades. The Taiwan issue extends (as I see it) to how far the two governments are interested in allowing said de-facto status to become de-jure (or alternately, in reversing said de-facto status). The PRC steps up their military sabre-rattling not when the ROC government claims that they alone are the authority of China, but when the ROC government threatens to claim that they are independent of China. It's a strange situation wherein the PRC presently prefers that the ROC continue to (officially) consider the PRC illegitimate, rather than the legal government of mainland China, as distinguished from Taiwan.

[Cynical Cat]

A discussion about the relative risk of fascist tendancies in China and I'm counting three different citations of how the US is a fascist state by one definition or another within the first eight posts. It strikes me as odd that the conversation always goes there whenever something like this is discussed.

Appeal to motive fallacy, not a rebuttal.

[fgalkin]

In other news, we learn that some people have poor reading comprehension. News at 11!

A discussion about the relative risk of fascist tendancies in China and I'm counting three different citations of how the US is a fascist state by one definition or another within the first eight posts. It strikes me as odd that the conversation always goes there whenever something like this is discussed.

Thanks for that Bulverism. Not to mention that you have the reading comprehension of a kindergartner.

And no, nationalism does not count. If it did, USA would be the world's pre-eminent fascist nation.

In any case, if we consider those as evidence of unrest leading to fascism, we might as well say USA is far along that path, what with RNC and WTO protests.

I couldn't see the third one, so maybe your math skills match your reading skills.

How is that relevant to a figure of speech? Oh wait, it's not.

It's relevant to you claiming someone is ignorant and then turning around and making a flawed comparison. Do not blame me if people take your comparisons as evidence that you might not know what the hell you're talking about.[/quote]
Not when I deliberately picked the most ridiculous image possible. Don't blame me for your lack of reading comprehension

"Love" might be too strong a term (as you may have noticed, I wasn't going for precise definitions in my post), but they are, in general, happy with it.

I'm certain they're content with it for the most part, as is only reasonable, but I'm not sure where you're getting the info that people are happy by and large with the government. I mean they might well be, but it's not like anyone can tell, what with the lack of objective data or polling within the country. The way I see it, the best I can say is that they are simply not annoyed enough to do something about it on a large scale.

Most Chinese are more concerned with their own daily lives and wellbeing much more than with any national issue. When something goes wrong on the local level, they are obviously more than willing to take action. They are content to let the government in Beijing do its own thing, and are supportive of them, as they occasionally step in and solve the local issues facing them, and that's the only contact they ever have with it.

Liberalisation on the part of said government. 20 years ago, the protests would have been crushed with tanks. Now, they are not. The fact that they are directed against specific local issues, rather than the central government might have something to do with it, too. Was that a trick question?

I question the degree to which the government has liberalized. 20 years ago the government was threatened with what they saw (rightly or wrongly) as a threat to the national order, and they crushed it with tanks. The protests today are directed against specific local issues, it's true, and as a result the government does not see the need to act with such harshness. I don't think however that indicates that the government has liberalized. Nobody has challenged them in the way that they felt themselves to be challenged back then.


Obviously there's plenty of reasons why people might not do so, one of which is the threat of being killed with tanks, another of which is that they feel things are all right as they stand. I don't know which is the most prevalent, but in a country the size of China, I'd imagine there's plenty of both.

Wake me up when there are protests against the system itself, like there are in Russia.

Given what happened in 1989, I would not expect to see large-scale protests against the system itself. That doesn't mean that everyone is happy with the way things are running in China.

Except that's not what I said. You might want to re-read my post before you end up looking silly.

Funny, I was gonna say the same thing...

Naturally. The issue is which of the two Chinese governments is legitimate, the one in Beijing or the one in Taipei.

That's not the crux of the issue either. That reduces the question to a blanket either/or, which, while important, is far from the reality of what's going on. It's true that both governments claim absolute legitimacy over the whole of both China and Taiwan. But Taiwan is de-facto independent, and has been for decades. The Taiwan issue extends (as I see it) to how far the two governments are interested in allowing said de-facto status to become de-jure (or alternately, in reversing said de-facto status). The PRC steps up their military sabre-rattling not when the ROC government claims that they alone are the authority of China, but when the ROC government threatens to claim that they are independent of China. It's a strange situation wherein the PRC presently prefers that the ROC continue to (officially) consider the PRC illegitimate, rather than the legal government of mainland China, as distinguished from Taiwan.

Eh, Taiwanese independence became a serious issue only with the rise of the Pan-Green Coalition in the 2000s, so it's been a serious point of contention for less than a decade. Now that the Kuomintang and the Blues are back in power, it's likely going to go away for a bit once more.

Where are you getting imminent from? I'm not claiming imminent risk.

Y'all are paying to much attention to the old men in Beijing and not enough to the new guys out in the provinces. The ones who are going to replace those tired scared old men sooner or later. Is the Beijing central government fascist? No. Good thing I never said that they were huh? I said that these are the two nations most in danger. You'll note, in danger. Not inevitable. Not are currently. In danger.

Out in the provinces you have do indeed have growing connections between politicians and businessmen. You do have racial conflicts and growing nationalism. In short you have a up-coming generation that could very well tilt into fascism.

You're equating Russia, where this may occur within a decade of now (not that it will, but that's a different issue) with China. That implies imminent risk. *shrug*

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[frigidmagi]

You're equating Russia, where this may occur within a decade of now (not that it will, but that's a different issue) with China. That implies imminent risk. *shrug*

Okay, that's fair enough. It wasn't my intent to do so and I apologize for that. I'm thinking a bit father down the line even for Russia. I honestly figure Putin can hold for at least a decade or two and the current Chinese government for longer. I'm mainly speaking in a 20 to 30 year period here and again I'm saying it's a danger not an inevitablity. It can still and may be avoided, even in Russia.

We can hope so at least.

[fgalkin]

You're equating Russia, where this may occur within a decade of now (not that it will, but that's a different issue) with China. That implies imminent risk. *shrug*

Okay, that's fair enough. It wasn't my intent to do so and I apologize for that. I'm thinking a bit father down the line even for Russia. I honestly figure Putin can hold for at least a decade or two and the current Chinese government for longer. I'm mainly speaking in a 20 to 30 year period here and again I'm saying it's a danger not an inevitablity. It can still and may be avoided, even in Russia.

We can hope so at least.

I don't think we can reliably predict trends and events 30 years from now, so a discussion about anything but the short term is kinda moot. I mean, could you imagine predicting the rise of Putin in the 80s, or even the late 90s? Russia is not politically stable, so anything can happen in 5 years, to say nothing of 30.

China is a lot more stable, but the course it takes will depend on the economic conditions and the central government's response to them, something I find hard to predict reliably from 2009.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[frigidmagi]

don't think we can reliably predict trends and events 30 years from now, so a discussion about anything but the short term is kinda moot. I mean, could you imagine predicting the rise of Putin in the 80s, or even the late 90s? Russia is not politically stable, so anything can happen in 5 years, to say nothing of 30.

China is a lot more stable, but the course it takes will depend on the economic conditions and the central government's response to them, something I find hard to predict reliably from 2009.

I believe one can still note trends and find dangers. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see the forming trends the possible outcomes. I freely admit that I could be wrong however.

As for Putin, no, I don't think anyone predicted him back when the Soviet Union was still standing. For some reason the collapse seemed to have taken everyone by surprise *shrug*. Shep tells me it's because everyone, including the Soviet government at the time had bought into the illusion that had been spun in regards to the strength of the Soviet economy (honesty and irony force me to point out that we are suffering from a similar collapse of illusions in the US). Whatever you think of his politics, his research is sound and he is usually able to bring sources to the table to support this.

In the 90s? There were a number of predictions that a strong man would take hold of the government, though the hope was that Republician forms of government would take hold and we would end up with a liberal democracy. Putin is more sophisticated in some ways then your average strong man (which makes sense, the average Russian is more sophisticated and better educated then your average 3rd world farmer), but... Well if the shoe fits.

[fgalkin]

Uh...no. No one in the 90s saw a strong man coming. A strong man was nowhere to be found in Russian politics. Everyone was worried about a Communist victory in 2000. No one even knew Putin's name until he was made Premier by Yeltsin (the third one in under a year), and certainly no one even considered the possibility of him being leader of Russia.

Hell, my boss, one of the richest and most powerful men in Russia in the 90s, lost billions along with his more famous once rival and then ally Berezovsky, because they fundamentally misjudged Putin, and they were the ones who made him in the first place! The man was a complete dark horse, even to his own kingmakers.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[frigidmagi]

Uh...no. No one in the 90s saw a strong man coming.

I never knew you were telepathic and all knowing. I hate to burst your bubble but I heard and read that prediction several times in high school, usually when I read it in editorials there was a counter one explaining why that was silly and would never happen. Sometimes the broken clocks are right and all that.

[fgalkin]

Uh...no. No one in the 90s saw a strong man coming.

I never knew you were telepathic and all knowing. I hate to burst your bubble but I heard and read that prediction several times in high school, usually when I read it in editorials there was a counter one explaining why that was silly and would never happen. Sometimes the broken clocks are right and all that.

If I claim that tomorrow, Earth will get invaded by Martians, and it does, that does not mean I am prophetic, it means only that there was a fortunate coincidence.

Having lived in Russia at the time, and having seen the political commentaries there first hand, I can tell you that Putin took Russia completely by surprise, regardless of what American editorials claimed (were those the same people who claimed that a stable, democratic Iraq and Afghanistan are possible?). I also gave you an example of Gusinski and Berezovsky, who, unlike us, were actual hugely influential political insiders.

Finally, I will point out that at the begining of his term, Putin lacked the power to even remove obviously and blatantly corrupt governors like Nazdratenko from power, even though, technically, he had the legal system at his disposal. It was only when he replaced most of the government with ex-KGB men, a process that took years, did he really begin to exert anything like a "dictatorial" control.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[frigidmagi]

I never knew you were telepathic and all knowing. I hate to burst your bubble but I heard and read that prediction several times in high school, usually when I read it in editorials there was a counter one explaining why that was silly and would never happen. Sometimes the broken clocks are right and all that.

Try to read the whole thing.

[fgalkin]

I did. They were not basing their predictions on any actual evidence, because there was none they could find. Which is why they were probably laughed at in those other editorials.

Just because by an accident, they were right, does not negate my point that it's nearly impossible to predict events with any degree of certainty in a place as volatile politically as Russia.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin