Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Here’s a story about Russia that mirrors some of the peculiar approaches to real or perceived problems and how people address them. The United States is not exempt from this sort of problem-solving. Beyond the curious choice of limiting container size for beer a familiar addition of taxes enters the picture. And some wonder in the US why President Obama and the liberal agenda are occasionally compared to socialism.

So is this a case of Russia copying liberal practices in the US or vice-versa?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ordered new restrictions on the sale of beer and similar beverages last month in an effort to battle Russia’s rampant alcoholism. Questions are arising about why he is not targeting Russia’s drink of choice, vodka.

Russia is one of the world’s largest per-capita consumers of alcohol. The average Russian drinks 18 liters of alcohol a year. That is more than twice the maximum amount considered healthy by the World Health Organization.

The Lancet medical journal reported last month alcohol-related diseases caused around half of all deaths of Russians between the ages of 15 and 54.

In an effort to battle Russia’s rampant alcoholism, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced restrictions barring the sale of beer in cans or bottles larger than one-third of a liter. The new rules apply to ‘’light alcohol'’ beverages, but not to wine, vodka or other hard liquors.

The head of the Moscow-backed research group the New Eurasia Foundation, Andrei Kortunov, says it is no surprise Mr. Medvedev introduced the measure. “This is a tradition in Russia. That practically every new leader who comes to power in Moscow wants to do something about alcohol. Everyone understands that it is a national problem and something has to be done about that,” he said.

But some say his efforts fall short of addressing the real problem.

Anna Boguslavskaya is in her 20s, lives in Moscow, and loves the nightlife. She says she goes to clubs and bars on a regular basis and thinks the restrictions are ineffective. She says limiting the size of containers will not solve the problem, it will have the opposite effect. She says people will just buy more bottles of beer.

Kortunov also says limiting the size of beer cans probably is not going to make people drink less. He says he thinks the government’s anti-beer campaign is not targeting Russia’s drinking problem. “You know, beer is not the only drink which Russian population consumes in plenty. I think one of the reasons it happens paradoxically is because most of the beer production is now controlled by foreign companies,” he said.

Russia is the world’s fifth-largest beer market. Danish brewer Carlsberg has about 41 percent of the market share and analysts estimate the rest is shared by other imported and domestic brands.

The government has also submitted legislation that would increase the excise tax on beer by an average of 50 percent per year from 2010 to 2012. The proposal has already affected Carlsberg, which brews Russia’s No. 1 beer, Baltica. The company’s shares recently dropped to a four-week low.

Kortunov says the Kremlin needs to address the real root of the problem. “We should do something about education about enlightening people. We should develop this infrastructure that will allow people to go to sports and fitness centers. We should also advertise a healthy lifestyle,” he said.

In recent months, there have been sporadic government sponsored events at sports complexes throughout Moscow, encouraging people to exercise instead of drink.

Moscow resident Svetlana Andreeva, 25, says promoting sports is a good strategy, but it only targets young people. She says the program is not going to help solve alcoholism for guys 55 years old, whose lives are boring.

Kortunov says he doubts the government’s campaign will have a real effect on the problem. “If it is just the first step, we can give Medvedev the benefit of the doubt, though this step is probably rather a clumsy one. If it is all that they can offer, I think the results are not likely to be that great,” he said.

If history is any indication, Kortunov may be correct. In 1985, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev ordered dramatic cuts in the production of wines and spirits and introduced strict controls on the public consumption of alcohol. The campaign triggered a massive surge in illegal production of low-quality home-brewed alcohol.

No one wants to air their dirty laundry in public. But that doesn’t stop it from happening. It seems that when most countries are the subject of criticism about their history those raising the issue are not from the target country. Currently some in the UK are defending their brand of healthcare against criticism from those debating a similar issue in the US. Iran and North Korea are getting criticized by just about every other country for their pursuit of nukes and their subsequent denials or lame justifications for it. And the US gets criticized for just about anything and everything. A likely downside to being on top of the pile. And Russia is not exempt from criticism either.

Sunday, August 23, marks the 70th anniversary of the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - the non-aggression treaty signed in 1939 by Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. The pact included a secret protocol dividing Eastern and Central Europe into Nazi and Soviet spheres of influence. Days after it was signed, first German and then Soviet forces invaded Poland.

This kind of discussion will ruffle the Bear’s fur. Drawing comparisons between Stalin and Hitler will not go unnoticed in Russia. …’ in May, President Dmitri Medvedev issued a decree setting up a presidential commission to counter what he called attempts to “falsify history.” ‘ And then there is mention of something that seems akin to Russia’s Soviet legacy. ‘ Russian Emergency Situations Minister Sergei Shoigu introduced legislation in parliament that would make it a crime to deny the Soviet victory in World War II.’ The criticism is having the expected reaction in the Kremlin and elsewhere.

So what else are the critics saying? Dmitry Furman of the Russian Academy of Science’s Institute of Europe calls the presidential commission to counter what it deems historical falsification an “idiotic undertaking” and a “very bad idea.” He also says Stalin’s government killed as many, or even more people than Hitler’s.

But, given the suffering Russians endured after Hitler turned on Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union, Furman says it is natural that many resist equating Stalinism and Nazism.

Furman says it is “very difficult psychologically” for Russians to put what they see as their “victors” in the Great Patriotic War, as they call World War II, on the same level with the vanquished Nazis.

This might be a case of forgetting to note that Stalin was not representative of the Russian people. It may be difficult indeed for Russia to come to grips with the legacy of a madman.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(President Barack Obama meets with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during their bilateral meeting at Winfield House in London, Wednesday, April 1, 2009. White House Photo/Pete Souza)

At two recent congressional hearings, U.S. diplomats, defense and military officials outlined how the Obama administration intends to go about “resetting” the U.S. relationship with Russia. Lawmakers on the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs, and Armed Services committees asked some tough questions about key aspects of the U.S-Russian relationship.

If you are not concerned about President Obama and discussions with President Medvedev of Russia you should be. White the ‘beer summit’ of Obama and Biden is surely not the ‘test’ VPOTUS forecasted in months past, negotiations between the Eagle and the Bear may be.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For those who continue to offer their unconditional support for President Obama’s Administration another report indicates public opposition for his policies and the suggestion he embraces appeasement as well as other dangerous strategies in both his foreign and domestic agendas are anchored in fact. Understandably Russia has been puffing up their chest lately as the anxiety of a diminished role in international affairs and the lesser ability to influence outcomes since the demise of the Soviet Union in the eighties and nineties takes its toll. Rather than incorporate these conditions into foreign policy of strength there is evidence the Obama Administration once again prefers the path of appeasement in an attempt to resolve other issues. In other words, we will abandon the missile defense program in Europe if you help foil Iran’s plans for a nuclear weapon.

Russia maintains no such agreement is in the works. Obama and his crew publicly suggest missile defense may not be necessary if Russia helps out. Any way you slice it there is every reason to conclude these political statements are simply that and Obama is fully invested in appeasement. It is another way of saying we won’t challenge you if you won’t hurt us. How is that going to improve national security? The sad truth is it won’t. Just see how it worked for Neville Chamberlain.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

In Moscow, Medvedev spokeswoman Nataliya Timakova said that Obama’s letter contained various proposals and assessments, but offered no quid pro quo.

“Obama’s letter contained various proposals and assessments of the current situation,” she said . “But the message did not contain any specific proposals or mutually binding initiatives.”

She further disclosed that Obama’s letter was in response to one from Medvedev and that the Kremlin appreciated the “positive” spirit of Obama’s message.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has written to his Russian counterpart suggesting U.S. plans for a missile defense system in Eastern Europe might be unnecessary if Moscow helped in blocking Iran’s progress toward building long-range missiles, senior administration officials said on Tuesday.

Plans for deploying U.S. missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, ostensibly to guard against Iranian attacks on U.S. allies in Europe, are among a host of issues that soured U.S.-Russia relations during the former Bush administration. There have been indications Obama, who has vowed to shake up American foreign policy, might be willing to set aside the missile defense system.

“President Obama sent a letter to Medvedev that covered a broad range of issues, including missile defense and how it relates to the Iranian threat,” one senior administration official said on condition of anonymity to discuss private communications of the president.

“The suggestion is that need for missile defense deployment could become unnecessary if, working together with Russia, the Iran missile threat is addressed,” the official told The Associated Press.

Obama Offers Russia Secret Missile Defense Deal
By VOA News
03 March 2009

Senior officials in the Obama administration say President Barack Obama has offered Russia a deal involving a controversial plan by the U.S. to deploy a missile defense system.

The officials say Mr. Obama made the offer in a letter delivered early last month to his Russian counterpart, Dmitri Medvedev.

In the letter, the U.S. president offers to reconsider plans to deploy a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, in exchange for Moscow’s help to stop Iran from developing long-range weapons. Russia has developed economic and military ties with Tehran, and has resisted the hardline U.S. stance against Iran.

Russia has yet to respond to Washington’s overtures. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will discuss missile defense with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when they meet Saturday in Geneva.

Presidents Obama and Medvedev will meet in London April 2.

The missile defense plan angered Moscow when it was proposed by the Bush administration. Former President George W. Bush wanted the defense system, saying it was needed to deter Iran in case Tehran developed a nuclear warhead to fit on long-range missiles.

The Bush administration’s plans included building a high-tech radar facility in the Czech Republic, and deploying 10 interceptor missiles in Poland - two nations that Russia once considered within its “sphere of influence.” Mr. Bush rebuffed a Russian counter-proposal to install part of the system on its territory and jointly operate it.

Vice President Joe Biden has used the colloquial phrase “press the reset button” to describe the Obama administration’s goal of reviving and renewing Washington’s relations with Russia.

The approach of the general election featuring the selection of a new President in the United States has seen an incredible amount of turmoil surrounding the current political season. The war on terror while producing success such as the troop surge in Iraq has fallen on the deaf ears and blind eyes of the Democratic party as they criticize the party occupying the White House in the form of President Bush and also offer no congratulations that the US has suffered no further attacks on American soil during his watch. Struggles in the financial sector are also blamed solely on the President and his party by the members of the political opposition.

These situations are not an entirely American ordeal of course as the leaders of Russia in the form of Vladamir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev are experiencing similar controversy. The report below may suggest a change in tone from the Kremlin although recent events are more reminiscent of the Cold War than not. Two Russian Tu-160 bombers left Venezuela this week after conducting air patrol flights in the region. They may return in November for a joint exercise that hasn’t been seen since the Cold War that Putin claims he doesn’t want to be ‘dragged into with the West.’

Just like in the old days of the Cold War, Russia flexed its muscle in a small way with the Tupolev jets but in a more symbolic but provocative way with its nearly simultaneous testing of a new ICBM. The Bulava carries six warheads and can travel 10,000 km. Not surprisingly the Russian media expressed the missiles ability to penetrate any future missile shield. A statement likely directed against the US plans to install missile shields in Poland or elsewhere to protect allies from the likes of Iran or other ‘rogue’ nations bent on expanding their influence through terrorist actions.

The apparent change in tone from Mr Putin was not likely in response to European Union members limp challenge to Russia’s thumping of nearby Georgia. After ruling out sanctions, the EU held a meeting and then condemned Russia for the move. Do you suppose they are somewhat timid due to Russia’s control over so much of their oil supply?

Almost mirroring US financial sector woes Russian President Medvedev blamed the move on Georgia as risking the orderly flow of business in the financial markets of Russia. More turmoil and upheaval in Russia may be faced by the ‘privileged class‘ with ties to the West, international finance centers and of all things NATO complicating their agenda. It may be difficult to tell if the Georgian conflict and repercussions from it were responsible for the need to prop up their markets with this week’s 20 billion cash infusion or if Russia was simply experiencing the same problems the rest of the world was.

Perhaps after some time to digest current events and take the world’s temperature, Putin took a different approach to public affairs in the report below. Just like the financial woes in the US and elsewhere, politicians may be making too much of it too soon. If in six months we’re hearing no more of it the proof that most of the talk was purely political will be obvious. Just as obvious as the players doing nothing to prevent future problems and that they were just being politicians.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Putin Rejects Cold War, Backs Economic Integration

By VOA News
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin says his nation is seeking full integration into the world economy and will not be dragged into another Cold War era with the West.

Mr. Putin was speaking to Russian officials and business leaders in the Black Sea resort of Sochi.

On Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Russia is becoming “increasingly authoritarian” and “aggressive.” At an event hosted by the German Marshall fund, Rice delivered her strongest comments to date about Russia’s invasion of Georgia and other recent actions.

She said the U.S. goal is to make clear to Russia’s leaders that their choices are putting Russia, in her words, “on a one-way path to self-imposed isolation and international irrelevance.”

She said that for Russia to reach its full potential, it must be fully integrated into the international political and economic order. She said Russia is in the “precarious position of being half in and half out.”

In Moscow, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said Thursday that relations with the United States remain a priority for Russia. He said it would be politically short-sighted to squander the achievements and potential in relations by reviving stereotypes of the past.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP and Reuters.

Medvedev`s exclusive interview with RT
(on recognizing independence of the Georgian rebel regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia)

Russia Recognizes Independence of Breakaway Georgian Republics
By Peter Fedynsky
Moscow
26 August 2008
Fedynsky report - Download (MP3)
Fedynsky report - Listen (MP3)

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev has signed decrees granting formal recognition to the Georgian breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But VOA Moscow correspondent Peter Fedynsky reports analysts say the move could promote separatism in Russia itself.

President Medvedev announced Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in a five-minute nationally-televised address, in which he accused Georgia of an attempted blitzkrieg aimed at eliminating the people of the breakaway republics.

The Kremlin leader says he has signed decrees regarding the Russian Federation’s recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. He says Russia calls on other states to follow his country’s example. Mr. Medvedev says the decision is not easy, but it offers the only possibility to save people’s lives.

He says recognition is based on the desire of the Ossetian and Abkhaz peoples for independence, as well as United Nations Charter, a 1970 declaration on international law, and the Helsinki Agreement.

Independent Russian political analyst Alexander Konovalov told VOA the decision weakens the Helsinki Agreement, a document that has recognized the inviolability of Europe’s post-War boundaries since it was signed in 1975. Konovalov says this will hurt Russia itself, because Moscow will no longer be able to oppose U.S. and Western recognition of Kosovo, a province that broke lose of Serbia, a Russian ally.

The analyst says even more importantly for Russia, recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia plants a time bomb in the Caucasus, because if Moscow acknowledges the right of Ossetians and Abkhaz to secede from Georgia, why can’t the Ingush and Chechens leave Russia? He says he does not know how or when the time bomb will go off, but he is certain that it will.

Chechens fought two very bloody wars of independence with Russia in recent years, which ended only after one of the warring clans turned their guns against other Chechens to side with the Russians who put them in charge of the restive region. Chechens have been fighting Russian rule since the 19th century and the area is still considered a hot bed of independence.

The chairman of the European Integration Forum in Tbilisi, Soso Tsiskarishvili, told VOA that Mr. Medvedev’s decision is likely to raise ethnic awareness and stoke separatism throughout Russia. He says Mr. Medvedev’s decision to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia demonstrates that he is a short-sighted leader, who was selected, not elected, and cannot be trusted to honor Russia’s solemn international commitments. Tsiskarishvili is also critical of Georgian leadership, saying it runs the risk of losing domestic political support.

Tsiskarishvili says he is not convinced there is sufficient confidence among the people of Georgia in the ability of current authorities to control the situation in the long run, or that they will be able to remain real players on Georgia’s political scene.

Tsiskarishvili says that if any Georgian leader still harbors ideas of continued fighting over South Ossetia, it will mean the loss of virtually any possibility of maintaining the country’s territorial integrity.