Chess Grandmaster Kasparov Versus President Putin 416
An anonymous reader writes "The Times of London has an article on how Garry Kasparov, former world chess champion, is using his fame and intellect in an attempt to defeat President Putin at the presidential elections in March 2008. Kasparov believes that Putin is virtually a dictator who is dismantling democracy and returning Russia to an authoritarian regime. Some high-profile Putin critics, such as Alexander Litvinenko, have been the victims of unsolved murders, and Kasparov is aware of the dangers: 'I can calculate the possibilities as a chess player and I have to be honest and say that our chances are not high. But I take this as a moral duty, and when you do something out of moral duty, then who cares?'" From the article: "[Kasparov] will not be a contender for the presidency but [his political umbrella group] The Other Russia aims to create the conditions under which an anti-Putin candidate can win. It appears, however, to be an uneven contest against a man who enjoys 80 per cent approval ratings. Most Russians want Mr. Putin to overturn a constitutional bar on a third term in office. Many will back whomever Mr. Putin endorses to succeed him."
Kasparov on NPR (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
--jeffk++
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Informative)
What utter rubbish. Viktor Yushchenko [wikipedia.org] for one was in the process of displacing a pro-Russia regime in Ukraine at the time he was poisoned by dioxin. In what way did losing control of Ukraine pose no threat to Putin's power?
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
I live in Russia. Yes, it's sometimes bad here. And yes, it's MUCH BETTER now than in 90-s. Hell, we had mafia in our town walking with AK-74 in broad daylight!
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
What the hell is everyone smoking?
Putin, now being in his second term (2 term max limit), loses power at the next election. He cannot run for president in the next election.
Yes, I live in Russia.
Re:Too bad Solzhenitsyn is so old (Score:2, Informative)
"According to his critics, the book [Two Hundred Years Together] confirmed Solzhenitsyn's strongly anti-semitic views as well as his ideas of Russian supremacy to other nations."
Now, I don't keep up with him myself, but I've talked to others (liberal americans) who had strong negative opinions of him.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
There are two highly disputable points in your post: one, that Russia's economy is sustainable and balanced; and two, that Putin is a socialist. Both are quite obviously incorrect.
Russia's economic boom over the past 5-7 years has been principally attributable to the rise in oil and gas prices worldwide. Putin has been consolidating Russia's oil and gas companies into a much tighter oligarchy (cf. the reason why Khodorkovsky is in jail in Siberia). Meanwhile, he has been pressuring neighboring countries to sell their oil and gas pipelines to Russian companies. There has been a lot both in Western and Russian press about Putin's "energy empire." The rest of Russia's economy hasn't done much at all. In fact, fewer and fewer of the young generation even want to go into private business--most want to work for the state bureaucracy. Moreover, most of Russia's growth has been funnelled into Moscow and St. Petersburg (and dachas on the Volga), with the rest of the country experiencing few if any of the benefits from the oil & gas money. Lots of Russian towns in the countryside still look like they did in the 1800s. When oil and gas prices level off or fall (even temporarily so), so too will Russia's economic house of cards.
And in no way can Putin be called a socialist. Not even close. There are two groups within his administration: the siloviki and the St. Petersburg group. Neither are socialist in orientation. The siloviki are the so-called "power" people: they control the defense, internal security, FSB (i.e. KGB successor), military, etc. These are relatively agnostic when it comes to the economy, preferring the centralization of power and stabilization of society. Moves to centralize oil and gas fit well within their worldview. The St. Petersburg group are generally liberal (in the economics sense, not the U.S. sense) reformers who favor free market solutions and getting rid of the welfare state. They have been slowly trying to divest the state of its welfare obligations (with only marginal success, since the Russian people protest when you try to reform their pension benefits). Putin himself is a chekist--a KGB man--not a socialist in ideology or practice.
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Informative)
We certainly filled out a truckload of paper to bring her here from Germany. As well as ~$1,500 in fees. My reaction was more sadness at the slowness of the bureaucracy than anything else. (The US has contributed massively to the advance of human technology, and THIS is what we have to show for it?!?!?!?!?)
Back to Russia, she says that visiting the Russian Embassy to obtain the visa was extremely unpleasant, for whatever that is worth.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
During the same period you mention--the late 80's arms race--you ought to note that the high oil prices from the 70's had finally fallen. The oil embargo from '73 and the second attempt in '79 had kept prices fairly high throughout the whole decade. So not only did the Soviets have to spend more on an arms race, but they had to do so in the context of falling profits from oil.
Today, the Russian economy is quite small, even when compared to the gaunt economy of the late Soviet period. In 2005 dollars, Mexico has a slightly higher GDP [wikipedia.org]. It shrank a great deal in the early 1990s during "shock therapy [wikipedia.org]" and the Asian Financial Crisis [wikipedia.org] which forced a massive ruble devaluation [wikipedia.org] and IMF bailout [wikipedia.org] (notably, Russia's quick recovery from devaluation coincided with a world rise in oil prices). Military expenditures are less than 1/25th of the United States' [wikipedia.org] (but about 3x as much as Mexico--so still a bit high relative to its GDP rank).
The problem is not really the external commitments of Russia or arms acquisitions, but simply that a huge chunk of its economy is solely based on energy. As we all know, energy is a fungible commodity and is subject to wide, hard to predict variations in world price. A sudden oil price shock could do proportionally higher damage to Russia than one might expect, especially because of the consolidation of the energy sector in Russia, and the centrality of companies like Gazprom to Kremlin strategy.
It's pretty widely accepted that a lot of Russian money that ought to be invested is sitting somewhere in Switzerland or the Caymans.