The Moscow bombings
Pressing commitments at work (as should be clear to all readers of this blog, I am an exceedingly important individual) have prevented me from writing much of anything this week. However I do want to take a moment to comment on the Moscow subway bombings or, to get meta for a second, to comment on some of the commentary about the Moscow subway bombings.
One of the very worst analyses came from Kathryn Stoner-Weiss. Stoner-Weiss, often partnering with her Stanford colleague Michael McFaul, has been on a truly bizarre quest to disprove Putin’s “myth” for some time now, though she mostly succeeds in making an ass of herself. Her shtick seems to primarily consist of closely reading the vapid self-congratulatory boilerplate, the sort of dreck that is 95% of any politician’s repertoire in any country in the world, that Putin often spouts and then studiously going about “proving” him wrong. This sort of thing has long been the staple of think-tank whores (think of the myriad of “studies” that “prove” that Barack Obama is a Martian, Muslim, Atheist, Communist, Socialist, Maoist, baby-killing Chicago Mobster) and it’s a real shame that it’s made the migration into seemingly respectable bits of academia.
In her note for the New York Times Stoner-Weiss wrote the following (emphasis mine):
The Chechen conflict, in the meantime, has changed, but not ended. It has turned increasingly toward Islamic militancy — a component absent in the original Chechen uprising in the mid-1990’s. It has also grown increasingly creative and aggressive, putting the Russian population at grave risk…
The subway bombings is further evidence of the failing of Putinism — the democratic rollback he pursued has produced even less personal security for Russians than even the weak and unconsolidated democracy of the 1990s under his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin…
Some of the protesters called for Mr. Putin’s ouster, laying the blame for the failures of the Russian economy squarely on his shoulders and the economic system he sustained through high oil prices that have come crashing down. The subway bombings, like the protests last week, are a reminder that Mr. Putin’s autocracy has not worked for ordinary Russians.
Let’s take these in order
1) I am by no means a Caucasus specialist, but I’ve read a decent bit about the first war in Chechnya (the one waged by that great “democrat” Boris Yeltsin) and I’ve watched Kavkazski Plenik (a pretty good 1996 Russian language film about war) and it certainly seemed obvious to the Russians that they were fighting a war against Islamic extremists or, at the absolute least, a people that was heavily influenced by Islam. It’s certainly possible, and probably even likely, that Islamic extremism is now more prevalent among Chechen militants than it was in the mid 90’s, but to claim that Islamic militancy didn’t exist until Vladimir Putin showed up…that seems to be a lie that is both really bizarre and easily refutable.
2) The sentence I have highlighted is just flatly inaccurate, to the point where I’m forced to wonder whether Stone-Weiss is profoundly mendacious or just really, really, stupid. The rates of violent crime in Russia are, of course, substantially lower than they were in the 1990’s when gangland murders and revenge killings go so out of hand they were on the verge of becoming a low-level civil war. And Russian public health indicators are, of course, also vastly better than they were in the 1990’s, during those halcyon Yeltsin days when people were literally dying in the streets.
Let’s, however, ignore all of that for a moment and look only at Chechnya. What were the Yeltsin years like there? Were they a time of democratic bliss? No, they were a virtually unmitigated disaster! The Russian military suffered tens of thousands of causalities in the first war in Chechnya, and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Let me repeat that again for the stupid and immoral people, like Leon Aron, who insist on whitewashing the profoundly and shockingly criminal conduct of war Yeltsin oversaw in Chechnya. The Russian military suffered tens of thousands of causalities in the first war in Chechnya, and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. In order to demonstrate a more callous disregard for human life than Yeltsin displayed during the first Chenen war, Putin would literally have to ride around Red Square randomly beheading people oprichnik-style.
It is essentially impossible to overstate what a gigantic and utterly pointless slaughter the 1994-96 war was. For the love of God, it made people like Mark Ames and Matt Taibbi recoil in horror and disgust! They of “death porn” fame! Reading about the Russian assault on Grozny can make Ypres seem like a tea party: the whole thing was a top to bottom catastrophe that wiped out countless human lives for no reason whatsoever. If you can read stories about Russian troops (most of whom were 18 years old, had never been trained, and were literally starving to death) reduced to selling their weapons to the enemy in order to buy food, and not become violently enraged, well, I’d say that you are a sociopath on the level of Dexter Morgan. Or that you are a Russophobe of a profoundly immoral and terrifying variety. Or, perhaps, that you are a Chechen separatist.
Stoner-Wiess would have us believe that suddenly, when two lunatic fundamentalists set off some nail bombs on the Sokolnicheskaya line, we’re supposed to conclude that Putin is a gigantic failure. She wants us to think to ourselves “You know what, that Vladimir Vladimirovich is a very nasty fellow, let’s go back to the atmosphere of social chaos and disarray of the 1990’s when tens of thousands of people were being slaughtered in Chechnya for no purpose at all!” Sorry, I have more than 4 brain cells that work in unison. The idea that Russians were better protected by Yeltsin is a deeply contemptible one, and should be placed in the same intellectual category as holocaust denial (oh yeah, I went there!).
3) Of course the Putin autocracy has worked for ordinary Russians. This isn’t even a matter for discussion. Real wages are something like 3x higher they were when Yeltsin left office, health spending is 50% greater, and legitimate Western goods (not the 4th rate knockoffs and counterfeits that predominated in the 90’s) have penetrated even to the provincial centers. Any social, demographic, or economic indicator you can think of its better now, in 2010, than it was before Putin came to power. Indeed, the benefits that the Putin regime has provided to ordinary Russians are precisely why it is worrying to people who are not pig-ignorant about the country. Putin has, simultaneously, significantly limited Russians’ political freedoms while expanding their material and economic freedoms to previously unheard of levels. He has done so to resounding and lasting popularity, indeed he remains one of the most popular politicians in the entire world.
For someone that is actually concerned with democracy (and not simply “democracy” as defined by the geopolitical interests of the West) Putin’s Russia presents a very interesting challenge and some very tough questions. During the recent economic crisis the Putin regime has preformed substantially better economically than its more democratic and liberal neighbor Ukraine, and even seems to have rebounded from the crisis more swiftly than the incomparably more liberal and democratic Baltic states. These are very real problems for democracy enthusiasts, and waving one’s hands about and airily dismissing the positive developments of the past decade of Russian history with the ludicrous statement of “everything was better under Yeltsin!” doesn’t accomplish anything at all except demonstrating one’s profound ignorance and intellectual laziness.
Lastly, I’d like to note that the “Putin allowed the attacks to occur therefore he is a failure” school of thought is a close cousin of the idiotic “Bush kept us safe!” meme prevalent in certain circles of the American conservative movement. These two “ideas” introduce a cartoonish sort of utilitarian calculus into what is ultimately a far more basic question of political ethics. Either what Putin has done to limit political freedom is justifiable on its own grounds or it is not (note to would be flamers: I don’t think Putin’s actions in this realm are defensible!), his ability to prevent suicide bombings isn’t really relevant. If Putin had prevented additional suicide bombings (as he did for 6 years from 2004 until just now) would he be the leader that “kept Russians safe?” Would his ability to prevent terrorism change how one views the basic nature of his regime? It shouldn’t. Abductions, torture, and assassinations of the sort that Russian forces have carried out in Chechnya are wrong, unequivocally, regardless of whether they spur or prevent additional acts of terrorism. One would think that the people who constantly decry “moral relativism” in others would remember this.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
1. As I have always understood it, the origins of the Chechen conflict in the 1990’s were not Islamist but separatist. Even the Islam practiced in the Caucasus has been historically distinct from “mainstream” Islam, a patchwork of local traditions, foreign influences, and practical application. Even now I wonder how much the Wahhabism aspect is played up, both my the Kremlin and the bandits establishing their influence in the North Caucasus. I’m no terrorism expert; maybe they are getting funding from Al Qaeda or riding the wave of global jihad. But there is just so little historical and cultural precedent for this kind of ideological religious crusade in the region. I guess I am not questioning its existence, just how organic it is. BTW, I really recommend “Ghost of freedom” by Charles King.
2. No one likes a “back in the 1990’s we had to walk to school up hills, both ways” argument, I get it. But for crying out loud, bombs were going off in Moscow on practically a weekly basis then! Mostly they were not targeted at civilians to invoke terror, but the effect was indeed that people did not feel and were not safe. And it is a bit of a strawman to equate a terrorist attack every few years to routine shootouts, car bombs and daily crimes against persons that defined that “weak and unconsolidated democracy.” And, as you mentioned, financial stability is also a form of personal security. And what of the subway bombings in London or Madrid, the terror attacks in Mumbai and NYC and elsewhere? Results of non-democratic regimes in the countries where they occurred? Correlation does not equal causation, is my point.
3. I think there is a point to be made about the economic situation in connection with terrorism. I am talking about investment in the rural areas of the North Caucasus. I realize that well-off people also become terrorists, but they’re still doing so on behalf of some disenfranchised people. Generally speaking, jobs, opportunities, rich social life, etc. make people less likely to blow themselves up. They’re too invested and busy with other things and enjoying their relative peace. It won’t prevent crazies from being crazy, but it at least gives people an alternative to joining the crazies. As for Putin’s authoritarianism being to blame, every “shoulda, woulda, coulda” argument I have heard for ways this -and all terror attacks- could have been prevented advocates more authoritarian measures. It’s ironic that the groups blaming the FSB for intelligence failures have included liberal activists who usually resent that the FSB exists at all. Intelligence gathering requires violations of human rights. Can’t have it both ways.
BTW – Dmitry Medvedev. I’ve heard his name mentioned now and then, but who is he? What’s his job?
re: 1.
In response to another comment. See in context »Salafism is not endemic to the region but has unfortunately penetrated quite deeply and largely supplanted the local Sufi tradition, especially for young people. At least the Eastern part of the North Caucasus is quite deeply divided over this issue at the moment.
The Chechen movement started as separatist – Dudaev and co. had nothing to do with Islam – but has mutated over time into a religious one (building the Caucasus Emirate), which also allowed it to spread outside of Chechnya.
I don’t think an ideological religious crusade can be seen as entirely new to the region – Islam as an ideology played a significant part in the Caucasus war of the 19th century.
Both of you are so f… wrong I just don’t know where to start.
A Russian who actually lives in Russia.
“A Russian who actually lives in Russia.” – I wouldn’t accept it as strong argument. There is such a HUGE diversity of opinions in Russia about ourselfs, so I sometimes wonder if we live in the same country.
In regards to topic, I mostly agree, though I’d like to see something more than “comment on comment”. There is a lot of people who is wrong about quite everything – you can’t refute them all.
As for Putin and his involvement – I dont really blame him for failure to stop terrorists – as “poempless” pointed out, the methods of preventing bombing itself include some violations of human rights – we have enougth of this already, no need for more. But there is quite obvious political failure of cooling Caucasus down.
I do understand it’s not easy to settle down all of the local-clan-war, criminal, separatist(do not believe there is a lot of this kind), economical and social tensions there, but there is no other way to stop bombings. And VVP have done little to nothing to solve it.
Dear Mark! With the great pleasure I read your analytics, and it is pleasantly surprised by its quality. We colleagues: I work as an analyst in the military broadcasting company having the indirect relation to Russian Ministry of Defence. I do not have special illusions concerning our management though work on military men assumes some involvement. Nevertheless, I try to be objective. But, reading translated the American mass media, I do not get tired to be surprised incompetences. It at all does not concern ideology and hatred to Putin whom Russians support as smaller of harms. Casually and sometimes also the facts, dates are intentionally confused. Up to the name of cities and the countries. And for authors of materials there are powerful brands, like New York Tajms and others. Is glad to find out that anything similar is not present at you. Excuse for bad English, its absence is more exact; at University I learnt German and serbo-Croatian and now I use it-lajn the translator. Once again thanks, at many people visiting the Russian site of Inosmi where перводят almost all articles about Russia in foreign newspapers, you return belief in objectivity of the western press lost after the Russian-Georgian war. I will be glad as required to you to help it is information. Yours faithfully: Degtyaryov
Thank you, I will continue to try my best to be an honest and objective as possible
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Oригинaл публикaции: The Moscow bombings [...]
[...] on identifying the metanarrative or metacommentary on all of this. Others have been this already: Mark Adomanis, A Good Treaty, and Peter Lavelle. I don’t agree with every bit of the metacommentary, but [...]
I read the rest of the NY Times already… David Satter is such a sick individual
NY Times article
In response to another comment. See in context »Btw, Mark, you are pretty awesome imho
Kathryn Stoner-Weiss is the same person who co-authored a paper called “The Myth of the Authoritarian Model” with Michael McFaul. Another Russia blogger identified at least three instances in which the authors outright lied about the statistics.
But best of all they both actually commented on that blog post (or at least people pretending to them). What was Kathryn’s response? Logic? Facts? No. Accusations of sexism and “The facts are the facts and they are pretty startling and evidently Putin’s control of the media has spread to bloggers from just TV”.
The full comment is a must-read.
So in conclusion, Stoner-Weiss is quite simply an establishment hack and simply not worthy of serious consideration.
The Myth of the Authoritarian Model! Oh man, that brings back memories. A true classic…
In response to another comment. See in context »Ahh yes, those halcyon days of 2006 when we were all so young and the Orange revolution burned with the democratic fire of a thousand suns. I miss those days, that bubble economy was pretty sweet while it lasted.
In response to another comment. See in context »The Myth of the Authoritarian Model, about which I wrote the following in eXile: http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=16511&IBLOCK_ID=35
In response to another comment. See in context »Sean
I had almost forgotten about that article! I especially love your labeling McFaul the “Commissar of Transitology.” If you don’t mind, I am probably going to start calling him that
In response to another comment. See in context »By all means. I would be honored.
McFaul is one of the those people who prove that no matter how dumb you may be, you can go far as long as you stick to the Party line.
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh, it’s almost the best what I’d read in English press. Now it’s clear these articles look stupid not only from Russia.
There are people who can think there! It’s so unusual that I’m in a little shock.
What about the last thought I think it’s impossible now to talk about who and whom killed, had tortured and kidnapped. Too much time passed.
Thank for thoughts.
You are a legend. I get pure enjoyment from your articles.
Keep up the great work and speaking the truth. Tired of the agenda’s in the west.