Wednesday, March 14, 2007

MONEY MUST NOT DIVIDE RUSSIA AND BELARUS

I just finished reading Adam Goodman's (Being Had) article "Isn't it Ironic...". I liked the beginning, but I don't like nor agree with his absolute stance on Putin and the Gazprom dilemma.

Of course I like and respect Chavez.

Whether or not you agree with management of the Belarusian gas subsidy, you must acknowledge the fact that Putin has prudently managed the difficult problem of Russian asset management quite nicely.

Putin is a great president, and I am sorry that he is not great enough to be able to assure and orchestrate continued Belarusian comfort via future gas subsidies.

If you are going to judge the credibility of a president, any president, you must first consider the condition of his people, consider the assets at his disposal for their welfare, and consider the foreign and domestic pressure he is facing.

I think you forget to enter the variable of Russian political stability into your equations when you chide president Putin. Is it possible that Putin could have done more for Belaurs, yes it is. It is very possible he could have worked to ensure energy subsidies. Of course ! But what is he doing with the extra money Belaurs must pay?

He invests in the Military, he invests in Russia becoming more and more a global power every day as the power of Gazprom grows. He invests a giant amount of money into Russian industry via the continued subsidy the Russian people enjoy.

Putin's most important administrative task as President of Russia must be to
ABSOLUTELY ENSURE that the oligarchs do not fulfill their socioeconomic destinies and become the deified robber barons in Russia for the next 200 years. He must do this in such a fashion that he retains some reasonable margin of error and some measure of insurance of success.

What I mean is that while Russia could possibly help Belarus with continued subsidies, the extra money they earn from not doing this is not shot into the veins of foreign financial interests. It is not likely wasted on projects that don't build the overall fitness of his country.

Putin must simultaneously reign in the oligarchs, strengthen the states power, increase military strength, and provide for as much social welfare at home as he can AND RETAIN a socioeconomic margin of error so that no matter what happens, his path with the engineering and reconstruction of a modern post soviet Russia can continue.

Putin is not the enemy of Belarus.

The bottom line is this, I have told you several times, and I will tell you again. The Soviet Union made a terrible mistake by disintegrating and not instead evolving.

Belarus managed to persevere through good character and work to her Soviet assets.

Russia and the other CIS countries just simply didn't enjoy the same degree of success in this area.

Now Russia must count on Belarus to be a loyal friend and Soviet and post Soviet family member in spite of the fact that the assets preserved by Belarus is going to be needed to help restore the whole of the CIS sphere even in areas where the population weren't as Soviet, or as diligent, or as industrious as were the Belarusians.

I say Belarusian assets must be utilized because her relative stability is a beacon for hope and homeostasis in the region. Belarus must continue to be a beacon to the region, and provide stability for others even if it will be at her own expense.

There is a metaphor between the Patriotic war and what is happening now in post soviet space. Errors were made by Stalin and his administration immediately preceding and during operation Barbarosa that were clearly injurious to the overall strength of the Soviet Union.

All parties of the Soviet Union were called upon to help pay for these mistakes by a few soviet leaders.

The Belarusians have not made the errors in character, and esprit de corps and in general economic engineering that the rest of the soviet union made a after the soviet breakup, but the Belarusians must continue to be good friends of Russia even if the Russians are not at this time reciprocating in the same fashion.

The relationship between Belarus and Russia should be judged on its average value over the past 80 years, and not upon the level of immediate injury and inconvenience that will be suffered in the next 3-10 years.

One should also imagine the continued positive cooperative benefits that will be had by all over the next 80 years in spite of the current differences in economic policy that will be injuring and hampering that Belarusians.

Mike

4 comments:

BEING HAD said...

Et tu Brute?

Let me explain your "Subsidy". Let's say you work for a firm as say, a male nurse. You make a nice wage, you don't live in a mansion, but you are ok. But then one day the hospital or retirement home decides that they want a larger share of the profits. Nothing more than this at all: They just want more money. So they look at the books and they see that the attendants are making say $15 to $20 an hour and this money could possibly be theirs. So one day they come to you and say "Listen, I am sorry, but we want more money. So in the future, we are cutting your wages to $8 an hour."

You are outraged. You say "Hey, I have been a great employee. I have been with you through thick and thin. I can't live on $8. It's impossible. What happened? I thought that everything was ok…"

And to this they respond simply. "We really want more money. You are not one of the owners here. You are an employee. If you don't like it, go, and we will find someone who will do the job for $7."

So, your life is screwed and what? Nothing.

Were they subsidizing you? No, they had a working agreement with you that allowed you some profit. But then they turned around and took all of your profits away so that they could simply have more money.

What is this really called? Evil?

You think Russia invented this? No. Have you heard of the word corporate downsizing? Where do you think the Russians learned this trick?

Frankly Mike, I am shocked. You of all people should know better. I thought you were the Belarus lover. Can't you hear? Can't you see? There was no subsidy. This is a word used by the western press. What there was, is what as known as a working agreement. Russia was the distributor, Belarus was the manufacturer and this business is what kept Belarus afloat. It wasn't unprofitable for Russia, they didn't lose money before. Their raw materials were pulled from the ground, a gift from G-d; they didn't manufacture it. There was no law that said how much the raw material was worth. This deal was never a subsidy; it was a simple transaction that allowed for Belarus to be in business. It only got renamed a subsidy after their business was taken a way from them.

If anything, this is a lesson in life for the people of the former USSR to once and for all forget any ideas of togetherness or brotherhood unions. And this my friend, if I may remind you, is EXACTLY THE VERY ESSENCE OF WHAT GOT YOU ALL IN LOVE WITH BELARUS IN THE FIRST PLACE. You liked that they were friendly, that they were not like the western folks who spit on you and shit on you. They were kind, civil, humane, and respectful. Right? Remember? They were worth fighting for because of this, right? Remember?

This was about greed. And there was no real reason why Belarus had to get cut off. None. None at all. And really Mike, you of all people…

Mike said...

I am not jumping ship. I have always been a Russophile. And I am also a
Belarusophile.

I refuse become part of the conflict between Russia and Belarus. It is
obvious they have problems and the best thing I can do to help them is be as
diplomatic as I can.

Your position on this matter represents reactionary-small picture thinking.
You are only thinking in terms of years or perhaps decades. Perhaps your
opinion would be different if you started thinking in terms of at least 50
year blocks of time and maybe in centuries.

I will be closely examining your example of linking soon. I am pretty sure
I understand it, and I don't think I will need much practice to be able to
do it.

You are very naive if you think for a second that Putin and Lukashenka are
not on the same page. Lukashenka and Putin are two different men, with two
different management and problem solving skills/styles. However their big
picture outcome goals for Russia and Belarus are not likely signifigantly
divergent.

Russia has problems that Belarus doesn't. Russia has assets that Belarus
doesn't. Their fates will be homogenized inside of 50-100 years. Before
they can reach this point, it is likely that they will have dissimilar
sociopolitical experiences in the short term.

It is silly to engage in emotional/intellectual bimboism resulting in your
being part of the screaming masses, instead of being clear-headed, and wise,
and being a leader patiently working for an extreme long term goal in spite
of short term setbacks and dissapointments.

Belarus is a small country, Lukashenka is proably the worlds most
signifigant and valid small country president alive today.

Russia is a giant country both geographicly and in terms of population, and
Putin is very proably the most signifigant and valid president of a giant
country alive today.

If you are not impressed with Putin, then you haven't taken the time to
imagine the mamouth socio-economic and political challenges and limitations
Putin skilfully maneuvers. Putin is a genius and and a master chessman.
Putin inherited a very poorly set up chess position, and sick and dubious
chess pieces, and every day he makes Russias position a little bit better.

Mike

Mike said...

I am not jumping ship. I have always been a Russophile. And I am also a
Belarusophile.

I refuse become part of the conflict between Russia and Belarus. It is
obvious they have problems and the best thing I can do to help them is be as
diplomatic as I can.

Your position on this matter represents reactionary-small picture thinking.
You are only thinking in terms of years or perhaps decades. Perhaps your
opinion would be different if you started thinking in terms of at least 50
year blocks of time and maybe in centuries.

I will be closely examining your example of linking soon. I am pretty sure
I understand it, and I don't think I will need much practice to be able to
do it.

You are very naive if you think for a second that Putin and Lukashenka are
not on the same page. Lukashenka and Putin are two different men, with two
different management and problem solving skills/styles. However their big
picture outcome goals for Russia and Belarus are not likely signifigantly
divergent.

Russia has problems that Belarus doesn't. Russia has assets that Belarus
doesn't. Their fates will be homogenized inside of 50-100 years. Before
they can reach this point, it is likely that they will have dissimilar
sociopolitical experiences in the short term.

It is silly to engage in emotional/intellectual bimboism resulting in your
being part of the screaming masses, instead of being clear-headed, and wise,
and being a leader patiently working for an extreme long term goal in spite
of short term setbacks and dissapointments.

Belarus is a small country, Lukashenka is proably the worlds most
signifigant and valid small country president alive today.

Russia is a giant country both geographicly and in terms of population, and
Putin is very proably the most signifigant and valid president of a giant
country alive today.

If you are not impressed with Putin, then you haven't taken the time to
imagine the mamouth socio-economic and political challenges and limitations
Putin skilfully maneuvers. Putin is a genius and and a master chessman.
Putin inherited a very poorly set up chess position, and sick and dubious
chess pieces, and every day he makes Russias position a little bit better.

Mike

BEING HAD said...

live in the present. I am thinking of my own life and the lives around me and possibly for my children and grandchildren. Getting raped is getting raped. Would you forgive that proverbial employer who drops your money from $18 an hour to $8? Would you sit there and feel better because you are thinking that the decision is not really about you, but constitutes some vast movment that only might make sence when you are 90?

I am saying that if we continue to build on the capatilist idea that only the strong survives, the war that proves that point takes us all out.