Blame Yeltsin

Fred Kaplan makes excellent points about the Yeltsin-era roots of Vladimir Putin's power grabs. As he writes "So, by the time Putin was elected president in 2000, the vestiges of a democratic Russia had long vanished." This is the biggest flaw you see in American coverage of Putin-era Russia, a deep investment in this mythical era of Yeltsin and Democracy. Realistically, Yeltsin offered a Russia that was geopolitically weaker and therefore friendly to American foreign policy. It was also a Russia that was more open to western advice about how to run the country, and where the powers that be were more likely to have western friends.

What you never had, though, was any recognizable political democracy.

Comments

For God's sake, why do we have to keep moaning about Russia and democratization? Let the Russian figure out what kind of government they want. They've had the chance for 15 years to vote liberal parties into power - and *they don't want to*. Putin seems to be doing an excellent job. Can't we mind our own business for a change?

Posted by Norway | October 3, 2007 3:46 PM

I mean, you did have an expansion of fundamental rights, didn't you, for a while?

The Russians got to vote, and their media became freer, and--you know--they got to leave the country when they wanted to. So the revolution, while not perfect, wasn't totally craven. And Putin has contracted those rights somewhat since then, correct?

Posted by southpaw | October 3, 2007 3:51 PM

Well, Russia also became poorer, workers had their assets taken away from them by Yeltsin's band of oligarchs, the views of the oligarchs were considered more valuable to Yeltsin than the views of the public, and bombing parliament can hardly be called very democratic.

Depending on your POV, you can certainly view the Yeltsin era as one in which "our s-o-b" was in charge, and Russia was a more pro-American (or at least complaint-to-America) place. Too often pundits seem to confuse this with "freer" and "more democratic."

Posted by Tyro | October 3, 2007 3:57 PM

The Economist had a great article about this a few weeks ago. Essentially, Yeltsin had an opportunity to permanently marginalize the siloviki when he was president and he didn't. Now they are running Russia, but, as Norway points out, most Russians don't seem to mind. So we shouldn't either -- except to the extent that Russia causes us headaches in trouble spots around the world. But Norway's right that we should mind our business with respect to Russia's internal politics (and perhaps the politics of the countries that border it directly).

Posted by Fred | October 3, 2007 4:02 PM

What Tyro said. Yeltsin mismanaged the country, and caused a somewhat wealthy country to underperform and become more corrupt and unequal. This greased the skids for Putin.

The other thing is that the Russian people don't want a pro-American foreign policy. Much like many Chinese and Indians, they want to be a great power. And given their land mass, their nuclear weapons, their role in World War II and in defeating Napoleon, their UN Security Council veto, and their technological advances (especially in space exploration), they have a great case for being one.

Putin has a popular mandate to resist American efforts to be the world's sole superpower, and more specifically to resist American influence in nations close to Russia and within its sphere of influence. This is why, for instance, NATO expansion was so stupid-- we didn't seem to stop for one second and think about how we would feel if a powerful country formed an alliance with Mexico and Canada intended to contain our power.

Until the American public and press understand this aspect of Putin's rule, the discussions of his anti-democratic tendencies, while perfectly legitimate, will miss the point.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 3, 2007 4:08 PM

Dilan Esper wrote: "This is why, for instance, NATO expansion was so stupid-- we didn't seem to stop for one second and think about how we would feel if a powerful country formed an alliance with Mexico and Canada intended to contain our power."

True, but at no point in the past 50 years did the United States enter into a secret military pact with Brazil to carve up Mexico and divide the spoils. Nor has the United States launched a cyber-attack on Canada within the past 3 months.

My point is this: If Poland, the Baltics and others didn't see the RF as a credible threat, they wouldn't have clamored to join NATO. If the RF were a benign neighbor, or even just an obnoxious hegemon, Georgia wouldn't have set its entire foreign policy agenda around NATO ascension. NATO contains Russia because it poses a legitimate threat. Yes, that makes Russians angry, but it is not the same as Canada and Mexico.

Posted by &chik | October 3, 2007 4:17 PM

Yeltsin-schmeltsin. Huge country, tremendous socio-economic and political shift - it's rather silly to blame individuals for what's been going on. It's a miracle that it's been relatively peaceful so far.

Posted by abb1 | October 3, 2007 4:27 PM

One big problem with saying that we should let the Russians "do what they want" is that it's far from clear that they are being given a credible choice. (Note- this _does not_ mean we can or should do anythig about this: we most likely cannot do anything even if we wanted to or thought we should if we could.) But, there has been little press freedom in Russia for many years now and it has been steadily going down. All broadcast media except for one tiny, marginal radio station are state-controled and regularly broadcast matterial that, frankly, makes Fox News look like a model of fair and accurate reporting. The election laws have been continually changed since 2000 making it harder and harder for even the small opposition parties to survive. Blatent election fraud is common and has been documented to have made major impacts on several elections. State funds are used to support the parties that support Putin. Brown-shirt groups like Nashi treaten and sometimes attack even marginal opposition groups. FSB activity is very high and this, along with actions by the tax police, are used to harrass opposition groups. Given these facts it is at least far from obvious that the Russian people have been given a real choice and have chosen the model Putin presents. Perhaps they would have done so anyway, but they have not had the choice in any meaningful sense so far.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | October 3, 2007 4:39 PM

I'm basically with Norway, Tyro and Dilan Esper. I think Matt wasn't just commenting on the lack of democracy under Yeltsin, but on the tendency of the US media to fall into line with a narrative that supports US foreign policy. The many very negative aspects of Yeltsin's rule were barely noticed in the MSM; he was, after all, a pretty good friend of the US.

Posted by Tony Greco | October 3, 2007 4:46 PM

"All broadcast media except for one tiny, marginal radio station are state-controled and regularly broadcast matterial that, frankly, makes Fox News look like a model of fair and accurate reporting."

Ironically, print media is rather free. However, it is only read by educated elites who are disconnected from the vast majority of Russians and is contingent on such elites not making waves. The elites are probably closer to standard American liberal views (the type of people Tom Friedman goes to cocktail parties with) than the average Russian peasant, soldier or factory worker. We are talking about a country where today if Stalin ran for president, 25% of the people would vote for him. The average literate Russian could find a way to read the Russian print media, but chooses not to.

Posted by Reality Man | October 3, 2007 4:53 PM

"This is the biggest flaw you see in American coverage of Putin-era Russia, a deep investment in this mythical era of Yeltsin and Democracy."

I guess I don't recall seeing this "trend" anywhere, but I don't read Economist (icky, I dunna wanna). Now if you are referring to the conservative/Chicago school economics tendency to equate "free markets" with "freedom", then yes, there is probably some nostalgia amongt the Wall Street crowd for the time when the oligarchs roamed free.

"But Norway's right that we should mind our business with respect to Russia's internal politics (and perhaps the politics of the countries that border it directly).

Careful, Fred, you may have said something that will come back to haunt you...

Posted by Rihilism | October 3, 2007 5:22 PM

Reality Man is largely right on the newspapers, but it's worth pointing out as well that when the larger of papers have stepped very far out of line (trying to look into the Beslan case, for example) the have been smashed back down, reporters have been beaten up and even killed for pushing too hard, etc. So even though the papers are better than the TV and radio and even though they are largely ignored, they also have a lot of trouble from the state in Russia now.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | October 3, 2007 5:27 PM

Civil liberties are nice, but you can't eat them or feed your children with them. Putin has weakened civil liberties, but provided enough stability to enable more people to earn a living (okay, he's also been incredibly lucky with oil prices). Most Russians think that's a fair trade.

Posted by jbd | October 3, 2007 5:34 PM

Yeltsin offered a Russia that was geopolitically weaker and therefore friendly to American foreign policy. It was also a Russia that was more open to western advice about how to run the country, and where the powers that be were more likely to have western friends.

Seems like a straightforward enough definition of "democracy" to me.

Posted by Dick Cheney | October 3, 2007 5:55 PM

Southpaw and jbd are both right---while there was a lot to hate about post-1991 life in Russia, there was a hell of a lot more freedom, including freedom to emigrate, than there had ever been before.

That's not to downplay the ways in which life became much harder, but all that signifies is that most people, given the choice between freedom and comfort, will usually choose comfort. Putin knows this, and that's why he's so successful---people will put up with crushing of the press and the electoral system if it keeps crime off the streets and the price of bread low.

There seems to be a trend lately of assuming the worst of Yeltsin, which I don't think is really accurate. I think he did have some instincts towards democracy and freedom; when he was really in control, he worked well with people like Guidar, and its worth remembering just how vile the forces arrayed against him were (I've heard that Naomi Klein is claiming that his attack on the parliament was a shelling of idealistic democrats, but I haven't read her book---does anyone know if she's really that foolish?). Unfortunately, he was also a weak-willed alchoholic, prone to rages and manipulation by much more sinister characters (like Putin).

And finally, those who say we should let Russia "do what they want" are missing the many ways in which Russia doing what it wants comes into conflict with what a lot of other countries, particluarly those in the Baltics and Eastern Europe, want. Frankly, I think the US would have been perfectly happy not to expand NATO, had so many countries not been frantically trying to get under its security umbrella when they could. Russia has a long history of treating its neighbors very, very badly, and Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and others are probably quite right to think they're much better off with a little US protection. It's always worth remembering that while the US has a whole lot to feel guilty about, it's far from the worst power out there.

Posted by That Fuzzy Bastard | October 3, 2007 6:14 PM

From Matt Taibbi's obituary of Yeltsin:

Yeltsin wasn't a "reformer" any more than he was a human being. He was born in a Russia where the mean ones got the house with the mill and the wood floors and the losers worked themselves to death in pits and outhouses. He left behind exactly the same country.

Posted by Kiril | October 3, 2007 6:48 PM

My point is this: If Poland, the Baltics and others didn't see the RF as a credible threat, they wouldn't have clamored to join NATO. If the RF were a benign neighbor, or even just an obnoxious hegemon, Georgia wouldn't have set its entire foreign policy agenda around NATO ascension. NATO contains Russia because it poses a legitimate threat. Yes, that makes Russians angry, but it is not the same as Canada and Mexico.

Nobody said Russia is a benign neighbor. But Russia is a powerful one, and hegemonic powers tend to react negatively to efforts to come right up to their borders and contain their powers. Ever hear of the Monroe Doctrine?

But I should also add a couple of points. First, Russia is not the former Soviet Union. Russia is not an expansionist totalitarian state. It is a semi-democratic nation that has elected a caudillo and which is trying to maintain its military capabilities which requires it to be the dominant power in its region. Nobody's clamoring to reestablish the Eastern Bloc, as far as I know.

Second, remember that the Russia that we expanded NATO to protect against was Yeltsin's Russia, which was even less of a threat than Putin's Russia. And for what? What exactly does the US get out of NATO expansion?

And finally, those who say we should let Russia "do what they want" are missing the many ways in which Russia doing what it wants comes into conflict with what a lot of other countries, particluarly those in the Baltics and Eastern Europe, want. Frankly, I think the US would have been perfectly happy not to expand NATO, had so many countries not been frantically trying to get under its security umbrella when they could. Russia has a long history of treating its neighbors very, very badly, and Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and others are probably quite right to think they're much better off with a little US protection. It's always worth remembering that while the US has a whole lot to feel guilty about, it's far from the worst power out there.

The problem, though, is that American foreign policy is not about protecting Poles, Estonians, and Lithuanians from Russian influence. It should be about protecting the United States-- and we have a strong interest in having good relations with Russia, which after all can destroy us with nuclear weapons. That's quite a bit more important to us than whatever happens to Eastern Europe.

Now, I can see that interest being outweighed-- if Russia became an expansionist power, for instance. But the funny thing is, we probably increased the likelihood of that by expanding NATO.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 3, 2007 6:49 PM

Wow, we have some awesome authoritarian apologists here. That's nice to see.

Matt is wrong. Yeltsin wasn't perfect, but the fact remains that during his regime, Russians could read opposition media, criticize the president, run for office without the president's approval, and citizens of neighboring countries could elect the leaders they wanted without Russian interference. That was never true before him and it hasn't been true since he left office.

Posted by too many steves | October 3, 2007 7:34 PM

I guess I don't recall seeing this "trend" anywhere...

Read any of Anne Applebaum's columns in the WaPo... she really has a hangup about Putin and was, IIRC, pretty silent about the idiocies of the Yeltin era.

And was it really a "free media" under Yeltsin? As I remember, when it came to television, these, too, were under the control of the oligarchs, ostensibly "free" but in practice given to the oligarchs to prop up Yeltsin. Once Yeltsin left, Putin demanded that they fall into line behind him, and when they wouldn't cooperate, went after the oligarchs with the same enthusiasm with which Yeltsin, for similar reasons, engineered their rise.

Posted by Tyro | October 3, 2007 7:43 PM

"Matt is wrong. Yeltsin wasn't perfect, but the fact remains that during his regime, Russians could read opposition media, criticize the president, run for office without the president's approval, and citizens of neighboring countries could elect the leaders they wanted without Russian interference. That was never true before him and it hasn't been true since he left office.

Posted by too many steves | October 3, 2007 7:34 PM"

And then he helped the oligarchs take over the media so they would fill it with pro-Yeltsin propaganda before the elections. Putin isn't so much breaking from Yeltsin as continuing on Yeltin's path, just more competently. I bet the people of Chechnya also have their own views on how free Russia was under Yeltsin.

Posted by Reality Man | October 3, 2007 7:54 PM

too many steves:

I am not an apologist. When I called Putin a semi-democratic caudillo, it was not a compliment.

But I would ask-- what did you expect from Russia? Did you expect the Russians to just go away after 200 plus years of dominating their region? Did you expect that the US could simply neuter the country and move right up alongside its doorstep with no objection from the Russian people?

There were some real illusions that we suffered under at the end of the cold war, about Russia was going to crawl back into its cave. And Putin's foreign policy was inevitable (and is probably supported by the bulk of the Russian people). His domestic policy might have been less inevitable had we not been so keen on neutering Russian power under Yeltsin.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 3, 2007 8:07 PM

As far as I can tell, Yeltsin sold Russia down the river to a bunch of oligarchs.

Putin came in and cleaned that lot up - for the most part, anyway.

Now maybe he grabbed a fair amount of power himself in the process. Big surprise - he's ex-KGB (and as the KGB colonel in the James Bond film said, "Nobody ever leaves the KGB" - even it there is no KGB any more.)

So what? Basically, his big problem is that, despite what stupid Americans think, the "Cold War" never ended. The US neocons immediately started to find ways to cut Russia out of the resources in Central Asia, to marginalize Russia in the Middle East, and to surround Russia with US allies willing to allow military bases and missile sites.

Anybody surprised at how he reacted? He took it to the hoop strong! He cleaned out the oligarchs willing to deal with the US oil companies, chasing them to Israel and elsewhere. He refused to back the neocon war in Iraq. He refuses to allow Iran to be sanctioned - and will probably tip them off the instant Bush gives the order to attack. He fought back against the phony US "missile defense system" in the Urals. He supports the "alternative NATO", the Shanghai Cooperative Organization.

Which is why he's meeting with people in a couple weeks in Tehran. That's Tehran in IRAN, folks.

Putin knows the score. And that's why nobody in the West likes him. Because he's not a drunken bum like Yeltsin.

We need to run Putin for President of the US in 2008, with British MP George Galloway as Vice-President on an independent ticket...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 3, 2007 11:57 PM

Actually, I'd say that Putin's pretty clearly the best leader Russia's had over the last century, with Czar Nicholas and Khrushchev being his only real competitors (admittedly not a strong field).

On the other hand, I think a reasonable case can be made that Yeltsin was nearly the worst Russian leader of the last century. He allowed his country to collapse and break apart, while letting a handful of criminals steal nearly the entire national wealth, leading to the massive impoverishment of the general population that led to around 5M excess deaths.

Now although Stalin's death-toll was much greater, he was also in power much longer, and I think that's there's a pretty good chance that Yeltsin's policies actually killed more Russians per year than Stalin's did. Beating Stalin at this sort of thing is a truly remarkable achievement!

Interestingly enough, exactly the same sort of people and media-organs in America who loved and praised Stalin at the time, also loved and praised Yeltsin. Quite a coincidence...

And I strongly suspect that while Bush was "looking into Putin's eyes" and seeing a man of peace, Putin was looking into Bush's eyes and seeing...Boris Yeltsin!

Posted by RKU | October 4, 2007 12:23 AM

I think that structurally, it would be very bad for Russia to have democratic government with unfettered rule of law etc.

The reason is tha oil and gas are main resources, and economics of oil, and to a degree, gas, are upside down. You are rewarded for inefficiency.

If you are oil exporter, do you prefer oil at 15 dollars per barrel, or 75? Is it worth to invest billions to increase production by 50% and have the price plunge down 3 times? So how do you avoid it? Russia's oil production is so big that overproduction is a real danger.

The way to avoid it is to de-facto cooperate with OPEC cartel. It is a bit hard if the oil companies in your country are private -- you cannot exactly order them what to do. Unless the democracy and the rule of law is less then perfect.

So successes of Putin are putting domestic oil and gas production in a bureacratic straightjacket, getting prices increased 5 times, and getting rather cordial cooperation with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, and really with all de-facto khans and sultans of Central Asia. We scored a coup with Azerbaijan, but Putin seems to have rather good record on oil issues that are vital to Russia.

It also seems that the dirty war in Chechnya is comming to an end.

Other than that Putin record is mixed. Economy is doing better, I heard nothing this way or another about the most critical issue for Russia, which is health. A benevolent strongman would spend some of the petrorubles on better healthcare, substance abuse treatment etc.

Should we "play ball" with Putin? I guess that in principle we should. For example, we were dissing him left and right and then expecting to help with North Korea and Iran. Hahaha! (That's what I think that Putin thinks). Basically, every so often it is useful to have Russians agreeing with something or helping. To that end, it would be nice to avoid dissing Russia in the areas where it does not do us any good whatsoever. All this murky bussiness with breaking anti-anti-balistic treaty and now building radard and rocket launching stations in Czech republic and Poland. And when there are some anti-Russian excesses in Baltics, we could say something nice to discourage them. Ethnic Russian should have human rights too. Lecturing Russians on democracy should be conducted with somewhat better plausibility -- e.g. after such a lecture, shouldn't our President or vice-President spend a week without kissing a dictator? I mean, split lectures and dictator kissing into separate tours!

Finally, perhaps we could try to give some good example to Putin. Say, how to treat Chechens (see, we have problems in Iraq but we do not go as nasty as you!). How to react to criticism from other countries. How to avoid supplying weapons in areas where it can inflame tensions.

Posted by piotr | October 4, 2007 10:28 AM

"The way to avoid it is to de-facto cooperate with OPEC cartel. It is a bit hard if the oil companies in your country are private -- you cannot exactly order them what to do. Unless the democracy and the rule of law is less then perfect."

Democracy and rule of law =/= uncontrolled oil companies.
There would be perfectly legal, appropriate ways of ensuring that the country didn't overproduce oil, even with oil production in private hands. Heck, nationalizing the oil companies can be done in a democratic, lawful manner.

Also, Putin is an asshat.

Posted by rbl | October 4, 2007 3:42 PM

"Also, Putin is an asshat."

Compared to whom? Bush?

I laugh.

"Democracy and rule of law != uncontrolled oil companies."

And what country do you see representing that equation? The US?

I laugh harder.

I mean, get serious.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 4, 2007 11:44 PM