February 24: VwV was launched in February of 2008 and one of our first posts was titled, “After Fidel, Cuban bloggers discuss US candidates.” The post compiled Cuban bloggers thoughts on what the new U.S. president would do with the new leader of Cuba and so Obama’s infamous “without pre-conditions” line began, which haunted him throughout the campaign.

March 21: After videos of Obama’s reverend were brought to the public, the now President-elect delivered, arguably, one of the most memorable speeches in history on racism. VwV’s post, “World moved by Obama’s speech on race,” highlights what bloggers throughout the world had to say after hearing Obama’s thoughts on race.

April 17: As the first African-American president of the U.S., it was crucial for VwV to get the thoughts of African bloggers on Obama. In the post titled, “A letter from Africa,” bloggers throughout the large continent shared their opinions on the then, Democratic contender for nomination.

June 9: As America’s summer heated up, so did the presidential campaign but throughout the world. In the post, “Global: The world has a say!” VwV’s editor compiled a list of Web sites that allowed non-Americans to vote who they think is best for the states.

June 19: The rapid growth of technology played a major role in the 21st century presidential campaign. In the post, “Global: I’m voting Republican” covers what world bloggers thought about a controversial film by Charlie Steak.

August 29: This was the day the world was introduced to Sarah Palin – the governor of the U.S. state closest to Russia and John McCain’s Republican running mate. Without much information about the Republican VP pick, bloggers simply commented about McCain’s pick being a woman as compiled in the post, “The world reacts to Sarah Palin’s VP nomination.”

October 10: Race was not only prevalent on the Democratic campaign trail but also on the Republican, as rallies became heated. The post, “Racism on the Republican Trail?” includes just a few of the comments that were fluttering through the blogosphere about remarks made during Republican rallies.

October 24: The rise of technology returns with the post, “Dear American Voter: an international persepective.” The post covers Link TV’s project that allowed non-Americans to send letters to American voters via videos. The post includes just some of the prevalent thoughts of the voices without votes.

November 4: Mainstream media outlets weren't the only ones covering “breaking news.” As soon as word got out that Dixville, New Hampshire, was the first county to close their polls and count their votes, the blogosphere was on it. This post, “Dixville notch makes global blogosphere history” quotes the excitement of some bloggers and skepticism of others.

November 9: And, after it was all said and done…bloggers began to look back and analyze how Obama ran a successful campaign. In the post, “Social media and the making of the president,” analyses were offered by bloggers in three different countries of how social media played such a major factor in the campaign.

On the lighter side of the campaign, our silliest moments include: Tina Fey as Sarah Palin; Sarah Palin’s conversation with “Sarkozy;” And, Joe the unlicensed plumber.

The enormous financial burden of the two wars-Joseph Stiglitz estimates it at $3 trillion--heavily contributed to the financial meltdown in the U.S.A. and disarray in global economy.  Far from being a model for developing world, we now need to heal our own economy. Now it is America's turn to embark on overhauling its financial system, re-structuring its economy, re-inventing a more equitable government, re-examining its foreign strategy and re-thinking its basic assumptions about the world. In short, it is time for perestroika, American style. Call it transformation, as Obama does. But it must be done much better than Gorbachev's perestroika least the U.S.A. goes the way of the USSR.

It cannot be done without thinking out of the box of the Cold War mentality. But, as the war in Georgia has shown, this approach continues to poison U.S.-Russian relations.

The Russian rebuff to Georgia came after its repeated warnings against NATO expansion, after the bombing of Yugoslavia and the proclamation of Kosovo's independence. But it was Russia that was accused of reverting to the Soviet era Brezhnev doctrine. In fact, in his reckless attack on South Ossetia, Georgia's president Mikheil Saakashvili was inspired by U.S. abandonment, in the post-Communist era, of the strategy of peaceful resolution of conflicts in favor of the "shock and awe" bombardment of non-co-operative adversaries. This strategy has proved not only inhumane but also counter-productive.

Unless President-Elect Obama renounces this reliance on war as a means to achieve security for the United States and its allies, there is little chance that his presidency will produce a better world than the one President Bush left behind. It is incumbent upon European leaders, especially, those who refused to support U.S. in Iraq, to speak up and dissuade U.S. leaders from starting a new war and using bombing as the peace-maker of choice.

Let me now focus on the need to transform U.S. policy toward Russia. First of all, U.S. should abandon the fantasy of unipolar world domination foisted on the Bush administration by the neo-conservatives.  Alas, many of our European allies were cajoled into accepting, however half-heartedly, U.S. hubris. Now we need to scale down U.S. and NATO military involvement abroad and rely on skilled diplomacy and leadership by example, not brute force or economic blackmail. We need to recognize that even though the U.S. is the only superpower, it is far from omnipotent. We need allies and partners, and that includes Russia.

We also need to recognize that many of our current problems with Russia are of our own making. Our failure to do good on the promise to disband NATO is one example. Our expansion of NATO to Russian borders is another. The decision to install an anti-missile "shield" in Poland and the Czech Republic is bound to cause more tensions.

Imposing the free market

We made mistakes even while helping post-communist Russia in its economic reform. In the 1990s, U.S. adopted an approach, espoused by Jeffrey Sachs, Andrei Shleifer, and Lawrence Summers, which amounted to clumsy efforts to impose on Russia the same free-market dogmatism that is at the root of today's global crisis. Under the misleading name of the "Washington consensus" this approach to globalizing Russia dominated the Clinton administration. Yet even in the World Bank there were prominent critics whose advice was ignored.

One was Joseph Stiglitz who challenged the orthodoxy of free-market fundamentalism with an alternative economic philosophy he called "a third way." Cognizant of the benefits of free-market, he has also recognized the important role governments can play in preventing its abuse by tycoon investors and mighty corporations. Stiglitz was squeezed out of the bank because of his views, even while being awarded the Nobel Prize in economics.  Another critic was professor William Easterly who later authored the book with the meaningful title The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good.

Free-market Healer, Heal Thyself

While lecturing Russia about the blessings of unfettered free market, we forgot the lessons taught us by Thomas Jefferson . In a letter to John Taylor in 1816, he warned that the "banking establishments," when left to their own devices, " are more dangerous than standing armies." Presciently, he foreswore "the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity" as  "swindling futurity on a large scale."  Jefferson knew that in a democracy the people, through its government, should have regulatory power over irresponsible bankers and investors. As the Bernard Madoff scandal has shown once again there are plenty of those ready to take the country for another Ponzi pyramid ride.

Alas, Shevtsova applied her "liberal view" to Russia only, failing to consider a similar correlation between foreign and domestic policy in Western countries. Did she not hear that after the 9-11 attack Bush tried to rally the West to a "crusade" against Al-Qaida by proclaiming the Stalinesque motto that ‘those who are not with us, are against us'? Does she not know that, on Bush's initiative, The Patriot Act was then passed which has restricted civil liberties in the United States more than during the Cold War when our adversaries were not only considerably more powerful than Al Qaida, but also had much a large following inside the United States?

Scholars advising their governments on international relations must be watchful of the dynamic correlation between foreign and domestic policy even in the most democratic countries. Ancient Greeks knew that any form of government, including democracy, has a tendency to degenerate. We, too, know that the eternal vigilance against enemies of freedom, both foreign and domestic, is the price we have to pay for the blessings of liberty. As Shevtsova seems oblivious of Western concerns with the preservation of liberty , one would doubt her credentials as a "liberal." Her views seem more consistent with those of the neo conservatives.

Neo-con's Media Megaphones

Now the neo-conservatives seem to be re-grouping to take charge of U.S. foreign policy under Obama.  In fact, several neo-con columnists were elated by Obama's appointments.  This makes the liberals worry whether Obama will be able to carry out the transformation he promised. Teresa Stack, president of The Nation magazine, the flagship of the liberal-left movement that voted solidly for Obama, reminds its readers: "Neocons and their corporate mainstream media megaphone are prepared to do everything in their power to thwart progressive change.  We can't afford to take change for granted."

Indeed, it was the "mainstream media megaphones" that fanned hysterical russophobia during the Georgian-Russian conflict.  They regurgitated  comparisons of the Russian action to Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938. They also largely marginalized scholars like Mark Almond, a British historian, who found Russia's rebuff to Georgia fully legitimate. With greater justification, he compared the Russian action with Britain's retaliation gave to Argentine aggression in the Falklands in 1982. No great power will retreat forever, he quoted Kissinger. Indeed, after two decades of endless retreats under constant pressure from the West, Russia finally decided it can no longer retreat and hit back.

But hitting back is not a strategy. Neither is U.S. mass media hysteria. That's why Russia, the EU and the United States need to address the common concern for the prevention of armed conflicts along the Russian borders and elsewhere in the world, least they escalate into a major conflagration involving nuclear powers.

Hold Obama to his Promise

Now that Obama is about to be inaugurated, it is important to remind him of the transformation he promised to deliver. It has to be toward a more efficient, fair, and vibrant society at home and a less confrontational, less expensive, but more prudent and cooperative U.S. policy abroad.

The new policy toward Russia must include:

• Abandoning the fantasy of U.S. unipolar world domination and recognizing Russia's legitimate national security concerns;
• Abiding by international law and work within the established organizations such as the U.N., EU, OSCE, WTO, World Bank and IMF until they can be revamped to conform to the new reality;
• Returning to negotiations with Russia on all Cold War legacy issues, such as America's abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and Russia's repudiation of START II;
• Halting NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine or, at least, provide a ten years moratorium on such expansion;
• Cooperating with Russia in halting proliferation of nuclear weapons;
• Coordinating efforts against international piracy and terrorism, as well as against global warming and to protect the Earth's biosphere.

The New York Times described the election of Obama as a catharsis and return to the American dream that was destroyed--politically, economically and socially--under Bush. Obama's new appointments bear little signs of new thinking. They may be pragmatic in the sense of party politics, but lack a vision of the evolving global community and the role the United States and the West should play in it. As Gorbachev's perestroika showed, any attempt at radical transformation is risky. It's better to have the Russians among our cheer leaders and friends, not as our opponents or detractors.

A leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.

Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily IZVESTIA published on Monday: “The dollar is not secured by anything. The country’s foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse.”

As for the apparently imminent breakup:

He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.

Does he mean like the Russian-dominated Soviet Union from about 1986-1991?  His argument seems to assume the financial turmoil will cause massive revolt.

Asked why he expected the U.S. to break up into separate parts, he said: “A whole range of reasons. Firstly, the financial problems in the U.S. will get worse. Millions of citizens there have lost their savings. Prices and unemployment are on the rise. General Motors and Ford are on the verge of collapse, and this means that whole cities will be left without work. Governors are already insistently demanding money from the federal center. Dissatisfaction is growing, and at the moment it is only being held back by the elections and the hope that Obama can work miracles. But by spring, it will be clear that there are no miracles.”

He also cited the “vulnerable political setup”, “lack of unified national laws”, and “divisions among the elite, which have become clear in these crisis conditions.”

The first has happened before: The Great Depression and, to a lesser extent, in other recessions.  No revolts there!  The second paragraph is a rather weak argument to me.  The political setup of the U.S. has gone on for more than 200 years, and it has some issues, but nothing that’ll cause lots of strife.   As for lack of unified laws, well, Americans tend to like state-based legislation.  And divisions between the mid and upper classes is nothing new, even in Russia.

It seems to me that Panarin doesn’t have any idea what he’s talking about, much less a good grasp on the early history of the U.S.  I know there are seccessionist movements out there.  There are ones in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Alaska.  There are also regional ones (a western state association with British Columbia for instance).  But such movements hold little or no sway, and I see no reason to think this fiscal crisis will strengthen them further.

Nice try Mr. Panarin.  But it’s not happening.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Putin: “I am going to hang Saakashvili by the balls”

Sarko: “Hang him?”

Putin: “Why not? The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein.”

Sarko: “Yes but do you want to end up like Bush?”

Putin: “Ah — you have scored a point there.”

==========

And, through various media, Carla Bruni’s recent conversation with Berlusconi:

Bruni: “When I heard Silvio Berlusconi’s joke describing Barack Obama as ‘tanned’ … I’m very happy that I became French!”

Berlusconi: “We too are indeed happy that she is no longer Italian.”

Diplomatic language is more colorful than I thought…

First, as German blogger Yaschka Mounk reported, there was the rumor that Sarkozy might have had one too many drinks with Putin before a Press conference in 2007 (see video below):

Then, as you can see in French blog rue89, there was the infamous cover of a Polish magazine that displayed a modified photo of Putin spanking Sarkozy, graphically criticizing the current leader of the European Union for being too lenient with Russia over the Georgian crisis. It turns out that Sarkozy did have some influence over Putin when they met to discuss this matter. In the Netherlands, Michael Van der Galien at the Poligazette, quoting from the Times of London, writes that Sarkozy was successful at preventing Putin from further escalating the crisis in Georgia:

When Sarkozy was in Moscow in August this year, in order to establish peace between Georgia and Russia, Vladimir Putin told Sarkozy he wanted to hang Saakashvili “by the balls,” meaning forcibly removing him from power.
Sarkozy told Putin that the international community would not accept that from Moscow. Putin didn’t care. ““I am going to hang Saakashvili by the balls,” he said.
Sarkozy thought he had misheard. “Hang him?” — he asked. “Why not?” Putin replied. “The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein.”
Sarkozy, using the familiar tu, tried to reason with him: “Yes but do you want to end up like [President] Bush?” Putin was briefly lost for words, then said: “Ah — you have scored a point there.”

He adds:

Lessons learned:
1. Sarkozy saved Saakashvili
2. Fear of “ending up like Bush” now functions as deterrent

World bloggers are picking up the meme that the fear of being like Bush might be the most effective way to prevent world leaders from acting too impetuously.

Alex Massie from Scotland, calls President GW Bush: “the Inadvertent Peacemaker“. Superfrenchie ( France) is amused that the language of diplomacy can be so colorful.
However, others are not pleased that this conversation was leaked to the Press. In the comment section of the original article, Richard Grey in London writes:

good Bush joke, but shame the French leaked this out. Sarkozy is Europe's strongest leader, he needs other leaders of the world to trust he wouldn't send confidential conversations out to the press

In the same comment section,Angel, from Sofia, Bulgaria, agrees:

This is french propaganda campaign which sought to reassure other european countries that their security and well-being can depend on the french paper tiger.
It is also possible for them to play good cop bad cop with the russians, with the aim of replacing NATO with ESDP.

Even a French blogger concurs. Pierre Vienot in New York, US, protests:

“Monsieur le President, self promotion is unacceptable! Your advisor should shut up.”

What I’m getting at here is that the list… works. Someone is slowly and quietly plucking people out of it and annihilating them.

This is not the first list, nor the only one. The first was published in the year 1990 and they had prepared it in the bowels of Russian National Unity (RNE) – a nationalist organization which was headed by the nationalist Barkashov, who remains alive and well to this day.

And there are other lists too. The authors of such lists don’t hide themselves. One way or another, they’re connected with such organizations as the Union of Orthodox Gonfaloniers, the Slavic Script Foundation, the Black Hundred, Orthodox Rus’, the Movement Against Illegal Immigration (DPNI)…

From history it is known that persons become enemies of the people for various reasons. Even in Roman law there existed the term hostis publacae – public enemy. With this term they would designate enemies of the Roman empire – as a rule, the soldiers of armies fighting against the Romans.

In the year 1789, the leaders of the French Revolution remembered about this term and came up with one of their own – l’ennemi du peuple – the enemy of the people. The Jacobins nurtured the seeds of hate not towards external enemies, but towards internal ones. Louis Antoine Saint-Just called for «punishing not only enemies, but also the indifferent». «Friend of the people» (according to the name of the newspaper issued by him) Jean Paul Marat called for the beheading of 100 thousand enemies of the people. Georges Jacques Danton and Maximilian Robespierre too did not stand on ceremony with opponents of the revolution.

Those who sowed thunder reaped a storm: Saint-Just, Robespierre, and Danton were all beheaded on the guillotine (the last as an English spy). Marat was stabbed in the jacuzzi by Charlotte Corday. Revolutions hav

As reported by the Daily Vzglyad, Obama reiterated his commitment to the Patriot missile batteries in Poland, signed earlier in August by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. The paper commented on Western Europe's desire for a “new beginning in relations between Russia and the US,” but remained convinced that President-elect's desire not to deviate form the previous administration's plans signaled that major changes in US-Russia relations are not expected to take place anytime soon.

This attitude is highlighted by another analysis in Vzglyad, in which Russian foreign policy specialists are openly saying that they do not hope, at present, for any warming in US-Russia relations. Mikhail Margelov, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Duma Senate (upper chamber of the Russian Parliament) is quoted as saying that major changes will not take place because “too many disagreements have piled up between our countries. … We are expecting that the US will continue the policy of selective cooperation with Russia, particularly in the area of nuclear non-proliferation and anti-terrorism initiatives.” He also called on his colleagues not to “take [Obama's] election promises seriously, since they were only declarations, which are primitive in context - while the reality is always more complex.”

An even more direct opinion was voiced in the same article by Alexander Hramchikhin, director of analysis at the Center of Political and Military Studies: “Obama is inexperienced in foreign policy, and will have to heavily rely on his advisors, like Senator Biden, who is more of a hawk than McCain. … Obama himself is a “black box” - we are not talking about the color of his skin, but about the lack of knowledge on what he will be like as President, since he has absolutely no relevant experience.”

Still, there was some cautious optimism voiced by the Russian political establishment. In the same article, Konsantin Kosachev, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Duma (and counterpart to Congressman Berman of the House Foreign Relations Committee) stated that “Obama's victory gives hope for a new reality in US-Russia relations, but it's premature to predict when that would actually take place. Obama will be under pressure from his team of advisors, whose approaches to Russia do not differ significantly from that of the Bush Administration.” On the other hand, Mr. Kosachev highlighted Obama's biggest advantage in foreign policy: “Obama's thinking is not influenced too much by the Cold War. Senator Obama did not engage in openly hostile rhetoric towards Russia, which gives hope for the strengthening of our cooperation on key issues.” More cautious optimism was also voiced by Sergey Markov, Duma Deputy, who stated that he “could actually imagine a personal friendship between Presidents Obama and Medvedev, since they belong to the same generation. … They are both Internet users, and probably listened to similar music and watched similar films.”

Daily Izvestia reminded its readers that Barack Obama was more popular in Russia than John McCain, citing the polling numbers by the official Levada Center. The polls were conducted in late October in eight largest cities across the Russian Federation, and 27% of Russians were favorable towards Senator Obama, while 15% were favorable towards Senator McCain. More than half of the Russian respondents could not say with which American political party can Russian government better deal with; 39% stated they prefer the Democratic party, while only 11% named Republicans.

Daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta attempted to predict that Obama's policy towards Russia will be constructive and will revolve around issues such as nuclear non-proliferation. Assistant Director of Russian Academy of Sciences Viktor Kremenyuk stated that the “starting point in US-Russia relations is now very low, and its up to the leadership of America and Russia to raise our relations to a new level. With Obama as President, both sides can continue working on issues laid out by President G. W. Bush.”

Kremenyuk stated that Obama will pay attention to Russia' internal processes, but will not seek to interfere in them. On the other hand, Sergey Karaganov, Chairman of Foreign and Defense Policy at the Duma Senate stated that real changes in US-Russia relations could take place no earlier than in half a year from now. He also stated that “there will be positive changes, but Russia too will have to work hard to escape this “confrontational spiral.”

To Medvedev's proposal to lengthen the presidential term in Russia from four to six years, LJ user oleg-kozyrev responded (RUS):

I've found a way out. I support Medvedev's proposal to rule for six years. Only along with that, they should also change the legislation regarding the duration of the year. One year has to be 243 days long.

Although in his address Medvedev did not congratulate Obama on his victory, nor did he mention the U.S. president-elect by name, he nevertheless sent a harsh message by way of a greeting, promising, among other things, to deploy short-range Iskander missile system in Kaliningrad region, on Russia's western border, in order “to effectively counter the persistent and consistent attempts of the current American administration to install new elements of a global missile defence system in Europe.”

Below is what some Russian bloggers wrote in response to the part of Medvedev's address that was meant as much for the international audiences as for the domestic ones.

LJ user viking-nord (RUS):

Now, tell me why did Medvedev have to wait for the outcome of the U.S. election to deliver his address to the Federal Assembly??? No steps whatsoever have been taken towards improvement of the relations with the United States.

I wanted to hear him say that he was starting a new page in the relationship with the new U.S. administration. Like, for example, we'll begin negotiations on the missile defense system in Eastern Europe. But nothing of this kind has been said. Quite the opposite, this is how it sounded - you deploy, we don't care, and as a response, we'll place Iskanders in Kaliningrad and leave a missile division deployed in Kozelsk. That is, we are launching an arms race at the time of an economic crisis!!! Not bad, right???

In general, I think even Obama could not expect anything like this… And he could have retreated with the missile defense system, as this is an expensive delight, and the Democrats, as a rule, are very practical.

A few comments to this post:

disaster_cake:

Don't be naive, nothing will change in the relationship between Russia and America in the nearest future. A change of regime on one side doesn't mean anything. Besides, the attitude towards Russia is perhaps the only point on which Obama agreed with McCain during the debates.

***

prikolruss:

They need an enemy. Hence the provocation and ruthlessness. They can't do without an enemy, can they??? :(((

***

viking_nord:

An image of an external enemy is needed to suppress domestic freedoms.

LJ user telemont (RUS):

[…] If there'd been no [address by Medvedev on Nov. 5], all the commentators would've been discussing the U.S. election, and domestic realities would have inevitably been compared to the American ones. By stepping out onto the podium and dropping a set of pre-made chips, Medvedev has shifted the focus of public attention from the issues that are dangerous to the regime.

Exactly the same approach was used at the time of the [Beslan tragedy]: when the public turned out to have many questions that were harsh and very unpleasant for the regime, Putin all of a sudden proposed to eliminate regional governor's elections. Honestly, [an irrelevant] initiative, but it worked great: everyone rushed off to argue, select and appoint right away, forgetting about the children who had died.

In another post, LJ user telemont noted (RUS) that trying to figure out the subtext of Medvedev's message is nothing but an exercise in futility:

[…] What's the point of looking for meaning in the addresses of people who don't assume responsibility even for their actions, let alone their words.

(A selection of links to English-language bloggers' reactions to Medvedev's address is here.)

* This post also appears in Global Voices Online.