Boris Yeltsin
pat...@gor.eur.compaq.com
Can someone tell me in what year Boris Yeltsin became President?
Thanks
Patrick. (pat...@gor.eur.compaq.com)
Henrietta Thomas
: Hi,
: Can someone tell me in what year Boris Yeltsin became President?
1991
Henrietta Thomas
Chicago, Illinois
h...@wwa.com
M. Emily Cummins
: pat...@gor.eur.compaq.com wrote:
: : Hi,
: : Can someone tell me in what year Boris Yeltsin became President?
: 1991
He was elected by about a 57% majority in the 91 elections. Pretty good
since he was competing against more than one person. His win is termed
"strong" but not "overwhelming."
Emily
--
M. Emily Cummins, elected delegate to the D.C. Miscing Convention
George Washington University | BA '95, Wake Forest University
Political Science Department | "Dear Old Wake Forest,
email: cum...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu | Thine is a Noble Name!"
* * * WAKE FOREST DEMON DEACONS - 1995 and 1996 ACC CHAMPS !!! * * *
Vizitei
You got something right !!!!
Dmitriy Rumynin
: Henrietta Thomas (h...@wwa.com) wrote:
: : pat...@gor.eur.compaq.com wrote:
: : : Hi,
:
: : : Can someone tell me in what year Boris Yeltsin became President?
:
: : 1991
:
: He was elected by about a 57% majority in the 91 elections. Pretty good
: since he was competing against more than one person. His win is termed
: "strong" but not "overwhelming."
:
: Emily
He was never elected as a president of Russia as independent republic.
He was elected in 1991 to be a president of RSFSR which was part
of USSR.
Dmitriy
M. Emily Cummins
Dmitriy Rumynin (rum...@math.umass.edu) wrote:
: He was never elected as a president of Russia as independent republic.
: He was elected in 1991 to be a president of RSFSR which was part
: of USSR.
But inasmuch as all of Russia could vote, in spite of the fact that it
was under the Soviet system, the vote can still be considered an accurate
representation of what the people wanted.
What about Yeltsin's election to the Soviet Congress of People's Deputies
from Sverdlovsk in 1989? Was that unfair because it was under the Soviet
system? I thought votes by the late 1980s were pretty fair.
In general, Yeltsin's rise to power (until recently) has seemed pretty
honest.
Emily
--
M. Emily Cummins, elected delegate to the "Scully Mulder 96" Convention
Jon Doe
Mr Yeltsin reminds me of my grandfather in several ways he even looks a
little like him.
Jon Doe
--
Le gach deagh-dhurachd
Henrietta Thomas
M. Emily Cummins (cumm...@wfu.edu) wrote:
: Dmitriy Rumynin (rum...@math.umass.edu) wrote:
: : He was never elected as a president of Russia as independent republic.
: : He was elected in 1991 to be a president of RSFSR which was part
: : of USSR.
: But inasmuch as all of Russia could vote, in spite of the fact that it
: was under the Soviet system, the vote can still be considered an accurate
: representation of what the people wanted.
What they wanted (a President of RSFSR) and what they got (a destroyer of
both USSR and RSFSR) are two different things.
: What about Yeltsin's election to the Soviet Congress of People's Deputies
: from Sverdlovsk in 1989? Was that unfair because it was under the Soviet
: system? I thought votes by the late 1980s were pretty fair.
He was not elected from Sverdlovsk, but from Moscow. And he was still a
Communist then, still loyal to the Party and the Soviet system. So of
course, the vote was fair. It was so certified by the government of the
United States, which at the time supported Gorbachev's reforms.
: In general, Yeltsin's rise to power (until recently) has seemed pretty
: honest.
Yeltsin was a very good politician. He apparently knew how to work both
sides of the street at the same time. But he can no longer do that because
the people will never forget how he made war on his own parliament---the
parliament that had backed him all the way since he was first elected to
it in 1990.
Henrietta
M. Emily Cummins
Henrietta Thomas (h...@wwa.com) wrote:
: What they wanted (a President of RSFSR) and what they got (a destroyer of
: both USSR and RSFSR) are two different things.
I agree, but all that means is that the people can wait for the next
election to boot out an unsatisfactory leader. And it looks like the
elex will be held on time.
: : What about Yeltsin's election to the Soviet Congress of People's Deputies
: : from Sverdlovsk in 1989? Was that unfair because it was under the Soviet
: : system? I thought votes by the late 1980s were pretty fair.
: He was not elected from Sverdlovsk, but from Moscow. And he was still a
: Communist then, still loyal to the Party and the Soviet system. So of
: course, the vote was fair. It was so certified by the government of the
: United States, which at the time supported Gorbachev's reforms.
Actually, his home area "sent him" so doesn't that mean he was elected
from that region? He was not a Muscovite so... well maybe he would have
transplanted himself to get elected there (he'd only been living there
for a while).
: : In general, Yeltsin's rise to power (until recently) has seemed pretty
: : honest.
: Yeltsin was a very good politician. He apparently knew how to work both
: sides of the street at the same time. But he can no longer do that because
: the people will never forget how he made war on his own parliament---the
: parliament that had backed him all the way since he was first elected to
: it in 1990.
In politics, 24 hours can be a lifetime! A lot might happen in a month.
Henrietta Thomas
: : What they wanted (a President of RSFSR) and what they got (a destroyer of
: : both USSR and RSFSR) are two different things.
: I agree, but all that means is that the people can wait for the next
: election to boot out an unsatisfactory leader. And it looks like the
: elex will be held on time.
I certainly hope so. We have about six weeks to be sure.
: : : What about Yeltsin's election to the Soviet Congress of People's
: : : Deputies from Sverdlovsk in 1989? Was that unfair because it was
: : : under the Soviet system? I thought votes by the late 1980s were
: : : pretty fair.
: : He was not elected from Sverdlovsk, but from Moscow. And he was still a
: : Communist then, still loyal to the Party and the Soviet system. So of
: : course, the vote was fair. It was so certified by the government of the
: : United States, which at the time supported Gorbachev's reforms.
: Actually, his home area "sent him" so doesn't that mean he was elected
: from that region? He was not a Muscovite so... well maybe he would have
: transplanted himself to get elected there (he'd only been living there
: for a while).
According to news stories and books I have read, Gorbachev promoted
Yeltsin from his Party job in Sverdlovsk to take over the Party post in
Moscow. That was in 1985, and if I remember correctly, Yeltsin was a
candidate member of the Politburo until his ouster in 1987. He was given
some other job in the bureaucracy (construction, I think it was) and
stayed in Moscow, where he ran for the 1989 USSR Congress of People's
Deputies. The following year, 1990, he ran for a seat in the RSFSR
Congress of People's Deputies, was elected Chairman, and in the following
year, 1991, he was elected President of RSFSR. So he never really "ran"
for office from Sverdlovsk, but he did have the support of the people
there until "shock therapy" reforms.
: : : In general, Yeltsin's rise to power (until recently) has seemed pretty
: : : honest.
: : Yeltsin was a very good politician. He apparently knew how to work both
: : sides of the street at the same time. But he can no longer do that
: : because the people will never forget how he made war on his own
: : parliament---the parliament that had backed him all the way since he
: : was first elected to it in 1990.
: In politics, 24 hours can be a lifetime! A lot might happen in a month.
That is true, not only of politics, but of life. One never knows what may
happen from one minute to the next.
Henrietta
amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
In article <4mhg0h$m...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) writes:
> M. Emily Cummins (cumm...@wfu.edu) wrote:
> : Henrietta Thomas (h...@wwa.com) wrote:
>
>
> : : : What about Yeltsin's election to the Soviet Congress of People's
> : : : Deputies from Sverdlovsk in 1989? Was that unfair because it was
> : : : under the Soviet system? I thought votes by the late 1980s were
> : : : pretty fair.
>
> : : He was not elected from Sverdlovsk, but from Moscow. And he was still a
> : : Communist then, still loyal to the Party and the Soviet system. So of
> : : course, the vote was fair. It was so certified by the government of the
> : : United States, which at the time supported Gorbachev's reforms.
>
> : Actually, his home area "sent him" so doesn't that mean he was elected
> : from that region? He was not a Muscovite so... well maybe he would have
> : transplanted himself to get elected there (he'd only been living there
> : for a while).
>
> According to news stories and books I have read, Gorbachev promoted
> Yeltsin from his Party job in Sverdlovsk to take over the Party post in
Deputy Chairman of USSR Supreme Soviet), so Gorbachev "inherited" Yeltsin as
a member of his "transformation team".
> Moscow. That was in 1985, and if I remember correctly, Yeltsin was a
> candidate member of the Politburo until his ouster in 1987. He was given
> some other job in the bureaucracy (construction, I think it was) and
> stayed in Moscow, where he ran for the 1989 USSR Congress of People's
> Deputies. The following year, 1990, he ran for a seat in the RSFSR
> Congress of People's Deputies, was elected Chairman, and in the following
> year, 1991, he was elected President of RSFSR. So he never really "ran"
> for office from Sverdlovsk, but he did have the support of the people
Andrew
who, unfortunately, voted for B.N. in 1989
> there until "shock therapy" reforms.
>
> Henrietta
>
>
>
Henrietta Thomas
amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
Thanks for the correction. And score one point for M. Emily Cummins. :-)
: Andrew
: who, unfortunately, voted for B.N. in 1989
No one had any way of knowing how things would turn out at that point in
time. At least now people have a chance to correct their own mistakes.
Henrietta
who did not vote for Reagan but got stuck with him anyway....
amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
In article <4mlb5d$e...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) writes:
> amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
> : In article <4mhg0h$m...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) writes:
> : > M. Emily Cummins (cumm...@wfu.edu) wrote:
> : > : Henrietta Thomas (h...@wwa.com) wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : > Congress of People's Deputies, was elected Chairman, and in the following
> : > year, 1991, he was elected President of RSFSR. So he never really "ran"
> : > for office from Sverdlovsk, but he did have the support of the people
>
> : Incorrect. In the 1990 election he was elected from Sverdlovsk region.
>
> Thanks for the correction. And score one point for M. Emily Cummins. :-)
>
> : Andrew
> : who, unfortunately, voted for B.N. in 1989
>
> No one had any way of knowing how things would turn out at that point in
> time. At least now people have a chance to correct their own mistakes.
>
Ii is impossible to correct any mistakes (because they are already "done"
and , consequently belong to the past). But it is possible to gain new
knowledge and apply it in the future. Is it your case? What knowledge you got?
How you will apply it? (Hint: In 1991 President elections in Russia I took
my ballot home -as it was suggested by some leading Russian democrats
three months before...:)
> Henrietta
> who did not vote for Reagan but got stuck with him anyway....
>
BTW, Reagan was the guy who did most to destroy "the evil empire" and, =>
implement "democracy" in the xSU. Why you are not happy about him?
My daughter liked his picture in Cinemania.
Regards
Andrew
who now concerned more with his daughter's French than with Russian
President elections.
>
Henrietta Thomas
07.1@leif>
Organization: WorldWide Access - Chicago Area Internet Services
Distribution:
amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
: In article <4mlb5d$e...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas)
: writes:
: > amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
: > : In article <4mhg0h$m...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas)
: > : writes:
: > : > M. Emily Cummins (cumm...@wfu.edu) wrote:
: > : > : Henrietta Thomas (h...@wwa.com) wrote:
: > : >
: typical female chat skipped...
: > : >
: > : > Deputies. The following year, 1990, he ran for a seat in the RSFSR
: > : > Congress of People's Deputies, was elected Chairman, and in the
: > : > following year, 1991, he was elected President of RSFSR. So he
: > : > never really "ran" for office from Sverdlovsk, but he did have the
: > : > support of the people
: >
: > : Incorrect. In the 1990 election he was elected from Sverdlovsk region.
: >
: > Thanks for the correction. And score one point for M. Emily Cummins. :-)
: >
: So, that is the real purpose of your discussion...
Well, Emily had said Yeltsin ran from Sverdlovsk, and I disagreed
according to information in books I have here at home. So I need to
publicly acknowledge that Emily was right in the first place, and my
sources were wrong. There is no real "contest" between myself and Emily.
: > : Andrew
: > : who, unfortunately, voted for B.N. in 1989
: >
: > No one had any way of knowing how things would turn out at that point in
: > time. At least now people have a chance to correct their own mistakes.
: >
: Ii is impossible to correct any mistakes (because they are already "done"
: and , consequently belong to the past). But it is possible to gain new
: knowledge and apply it in the future. Is it your case? What knowledge you
: got? How you will apply it? (Hint: In 1991 President elections in
: Russia I took my ballot home -as it was suggested by some leading
: Russian democrats three months before...:)
Well, of course, it is true that electing Yeltsin was a mistake in the
first place which cannot really be corrected. So maybe it would be better
to say not to make the same mistake twice. We have a saying in USA that
the first time you put your hand on a hot stove, it is a mistake, but the
second time it is stupidity. People should learn lessons from the mistakes
they make.
Now if you are still citizen of Russia, you should be allowed to cast an
absentee ballot at your local Embassy, but I doubt they will suggest you
take it home. They will probably demand that you fill it out right there
where they can see you to make sure you're not cheating. :)
: > Henrietta
: > who did not vote for Reagan but got stuck with him anyway....
: >
: BTW, Reagan was the guy who did most to destroy "the evil empire" and, =>
: implement "democracy" in the xSU. Why you are not happy about him?
: My daughter liked his picture in Cinemania.
I do not like the way he went about destroying "evil empire." Nor do I
like so-called "democracy" being practiced there. The only good thing
about it so far is that (I hope) the people will really finally get a
chance to vote and have their vote counted for real.
And besides, Ron Reagan was an actor before he went into politics. All he
knows is how to read a script and memorize his lines.
: Regards
: Andrew
: who now concerned more with his daughter's French than with Russian
: President elections.
: >
I hope that is a smiley there. If you are still citizen of Russia, you
should be concerned about the elections. The whole future of the country
depends on what happens now.
Regards,
Henrietta
Henrietta Thomas
<4mn19b$p...@kirin.wwa.com> <1996May8.221820.1@leif>
Organization: WorldWide Access - Chicago Area Internet Services
Distribution:
amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
: In article <4mn19b$p...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas)
: writes:
: >
: > amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
: > : In article <4mlb5d$e...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas)
: > : writes:
: > : > amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
: > : >
: >
: This is , IMO, common misconception. I does not matter who will be new
: Prezident: Yeltsin, Yavlinski, Zhirinovski, Zuganov, or, say, Shakum.
: Either new Prezident will be capable to "manage" the country affairs
: and introduce some stability (and economic "sanation") or he will
: be ousted very soon by some one really capable to do the job.
: And, BTW, one person cannot do anything except to accept inevitable
: social tendencies, do not matter how "nasty" the tendencies are
You have a point, of course. But if new President is able to "manage" the
country and introduce stability, he will not be ousted. So it might matter
who becomes the next President. Which of the four above would be most
likely to do that. Yeltsin has proven himself to be "the great destroyer;
Yavlinsky is too young and inexperienced and too closely aligned with the
West; Zhirinovsky is highly unpredictable; and Zyuganov might pull back
too far. Nevertheless, the people must choose amongst these four. And you
are right that, no matter who wins, he will have to deal with things as
they are, not as he wishes them to be.
Regards,
Henrietta
Telos4
Some think the Russian election will affect onlyl the future of Russia.
It will profoundly affect the future of everyone on Earth.
amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
In article <4mrq58$f...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) writes:
>
>
> <4mn19b$p...@kirin.wwa.com> <1996May8.221820.1@leif>
> Organization: WorldWide Access - Chicago Area Internet Services
> Distribution:
>
> amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
> : In article <4mn19b$p...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas)
> : writes:
> : >
> : > amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
> : > : In article <4mlb5d$e...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas)
> : > : writes:
> : > : > amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : Andrew
> : > : who now concerned more with his daughter's French than with Russian
> : > : President elections.
> : > : >
> : >
> : > I hope that is a smiley there. If you are still citizen of Russia, you
> : > should be concerned about the elections. The whole future of the country
> : > depends on what happens now.
> : >
> : This is , IMO, common misconception. I does not matter who will be new
> : Prezident: Yeltsin, Yavlinski, Zhirinovski, Zuganov, or, say, Shakum.
> : Either new Prezident will be capable to "manage" the country affairs
> : and introduce some stability (and economic "sanation") or he will
> : be ousted very soon by some one really capable to do the job.
> : And, BTW, one person cannot do anything except to accept inevitable
> : social tendencies, do not matter how "nasty" the tendencies are
>
> You have a point, of course. But if new President is able to "manage" the
> country and introduce stability, he will not be ousted. So it might matter
> who becomes the next President. Which of the four above would be most
> likely to do that. Yeltsin has proven himself to be "the great destroyer;
> Yavlinsky is too young and inexperienced and too closely aligned with the
> West; Zhirinovsky is highly unpredictable; and Zyuganov might pull back
> too far. Nevertheless, the people must choose amongst these four. And you
> are right that, no matter who wins, he will have to deal with things as
> they are, not as he wishes them to be.
>
pragmatizm and team of supporters than to any ideological characteristics.
BTW, I did not see any comments the media concerning this issue. Guess why?
IMO, when you try to describe candidates in terms of their ideology,
you still missed the most important issue - realism of a candidate.
And which is important as well, social- economic processes in Russia
are too powerful to be easily turned this or that way. Even small changes
requires huge and systematic interventions from authorities. Please ask
yourself, who of the candidate is able to act beyound "decree-making"?
Regards Andrew
> Regards,
>
> Henrietta
>
amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
In article <4mt5de$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, tel...@aol.com (Telos4) writes:
> Some think the Russian election will affect onlyl the future of Russia.
> It will profoundly affect the future of everyone on Earth.
It is not the elections which will affect the future but the whole
process of social changes in Russia. By itself the President elections
is very minor issue. (But interesting to watch, though)
Andrew
from the city of everlasting sping
David Henderson
In <4mrq58$f...@kirin.wwa.com> h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) writes:
>
>
>
> <4mn19b$p...@kirin.wwa.com> <1996May8.221820.1@leif>
>Organization: WorldWide Access - Chicago Area Internet Services
>Distribution:
>
>amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
>: In article <4mn19b$p...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta
Thomas)
>: writes:
>: >
>: > amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
>: > : In article <4mlb5d$e...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta
Thomas)
>: > : writes:
>: > : > amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
>: > : >
>Regards,
>
>Henrietta
>
Unfortunately, this is not a slam on the Ukrainians or Russians or
whatever, and I'm not going to call anyone a tchurka or question their
genealogy, so most of you won't read this.
In the above list of presidential candidates, one seems to be missing:
Aleksandr Lebed. Is he a viable candidate or not?
Henrietta Thomas
Telos4 (tel...@aol.com) wrote:
: Some think the Russian election will affect onlyl the future of Russia.
Elaborate please on the ways you will think it will affect us all.
Henrietta
Telos4
Henrietta asked how the Russian election affects all
How about a third reich with nuclear weapons. A dictatorship that is
willing to use nuclear weapons as instruments of terror could
successfully change the allignment of the whole world. Dictators can get
away with stuff that a truly democratic society would merely discuss at
lengthy policy debates.
I can't understand the idiots that keep pointing to the ineffectiveness of
the Russian army. Don't these people understand that armies are not
important except in keeping your own people in line. The United States
didn't even want to occupy little Iraq. But you can be sure that the USA
would have never attacked Iraq when it was allied with the Soviet Union of
the 1970's.
The willingness to use nuclear weapons as instruments of terror would give
a nation tremendous leverage. It's too bad the USA didn't have the guts
to be willing to bomb any country that tested a nuclear weapon. The USA
would have been able to bring about a true PAX AMERICANA.
If Russia nuked Grozny Chechnya would be back in the fold already.
Unfortunately, elections or no elections somebody going to figure this
out. Zhirinovsky certainly has. He's stupid for talking about it. But
the Communists with their messianic fervor could easily imagine a few
detonations are worthy of their cause.
amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
In article <4mtvjp$7...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, dav...@ix.netcom.com(David Henderson) writes:
> In <4mrq58$f...@kirin.wwa.com> h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> <4mn19b$p...@kirin.wwa.com> <1996May8.221820.1@leif>
>>Organization: WorldWide Access - Chicago Area Internet Services
>>Distribution:
>>
>>amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
>>: In article <4mn19b$p...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta
> Thomas)
>>: writes:
>>: >
>>: > amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
>>: >
> In the above list of presidential candidates, one seems to be missing:
> Aleksandr Lebed. Is he a viable candidate or not?
There were a number of candidates who are missed (like Gorbachev).
It was not the full list of them, though.
Concerning Lebed - he has no strong team of supporters who will implement
his "rule" (I count not those plain folks who will vote for him, but
really influential ones from "nomenklatura"). Besides that, he seems to
be not very "smart" according to the latest interviews with him I read.
But he could make a difference if he would give his support to one the main
candidates (IMHO, it may be Zuganov) in exchange on Minister position.
Andrew
amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
In article <4mvn5n$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, tel...@aol.com (Telos4) writes:
> Henrietta asked how the Russian election affects all
>
> How about a third reich with nuclear weapons. A dictatorship that is
> willing to use nuclear weapons as instruments of terror could
> successfully change the allignment of the whole world. Dictators can get
> away with stuff that a truly democratic society would merely discuss at
> lengthy policy debates.
>
The third reich and related social technologies could not be repeated
today on large scale. Small "experiments" (Pol Pot, North Korea, Jamestown,
Waco,TX) are still possible, though.
> I can't understand the idiots that keep pointing to the ineffectiveness of
> the Russian army. Don't these people understand that armies are not
> important except in keeping your own people in line. The United States
> didn't even want to occupy little Iraq. But you can be sure that the USA
> would have never attacked Iraq when it was allied with the Soviet Union of
> the 1970's.
>
that Iraque's affair in Kuwait was provoked by some people from the Soviet
leadership in attempt to change course of events in Soviet Union.
Incorrect (about unimportance of army). It is replica of Khruschev's idea
that tanks and planes are not needed if country has nuclear missiles.
> The willingness to use nuclear weapons as instruments of terror would give
> a nation tremendous leverage. It's too bad the USA didn't have the guts
> to be willing to bomb any country that tested a nuclear weapon. The USA
> would have been able to bring about a true PAX AMERICANA.
>
Sounds like Zhirinovski speaks. :) Or LaRouche?
> If Russia nuked Grozny Chechnya would be back in the fold already.
>
It is strange to see this misconception after Chernobyl. Nuclear weapons
now could be used only as a threat, not as real weapon.
> Unfortunately, elections or no elections somebody going to figure this
> out. Zhirinovsky certainly has. He's stupid for talking about it. But
> the Communists with their messianic fervor could easily imagine a few
> detonations are worthy of their cause.
Another old misconception (is it from Holliwood movies?). Russian communist
leaders don't have any fervor to fight (and sacrifice own lives) for their
ideas. THey are the most pragmatic and smart guys in the Russia today.
They know enough about any ideology not to put it on first place.
HIH
Andrew
from the closest to Moscow city of North America
Henrietta Thomas
<4mrq58$f...@kirin.wwa.com> <1996May9.180340.1@leif>
Organization: WorldWide Access - Chicago Area Internet Services
Distribution:
amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
: In article <4mrq58$f...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas)
: writes:
[snip]... to save bandwidth
: > : > I hope that is a smiley there. If you are still citizen of Russia,
: > : > you should be concerned about the elections. The whole future of
: > : > the country depends on what happens now.
: > : >
: > : This is , IMO, common misconception. I does not matter who will be new
: > : Prezident: Yeltsin, Yavlinski, Zhirinovski, Zuganov, or, say, Shakum.
: > : Either new Prezident will be capable to "manage" the country affairs
: > : and introduce some stability (and economic "sanation") or he will
: > : be ousted very soon by some one really capable to do the job.
: > : And, BTW, one person cannot do anything except to accept inevitable
: > : social tendencies, do not matter how "nasty" the tendencies are
: >
: > You have a point, of course. But if new President is able to "manage" the
: > country and introduce stability, he will not be ousted. So it might
: > matter who becomes the next President. Which of the four above would
: > be most likely to do that. Yeltsin has proven himself to be "the great
: > destroyer; Yavlinsky is too young and inexperienced and too closely
: > aligned with the West; Zhirinovsky is highly unpredictable; and
: > Zyuganov might pull back too far. Nevertheless, the people must choose
: > amongst these four. And you are right that, no matter who wins, he
: > will have to deal with things as they are, not as he wishes them to be.
: >
: The ability "to manage" or "introduce stability" is more related to
: pragmatizm and team of supporters than to any ideological characteristics.
: BTW, I did not see any comments the media concerning this issue. Guess why?
: IMO, when you try to describe candidates in terms of their ideology,
: you still missed the most important issue - realism of a candidate.
: And which is important as well, social- economic processes in Russia
: are too powerful to be easily turned this or that way. Even small changes
: requires huge and systematic interventions from authorities. Please ask
: yourself, who of the candidate is able to act beyound "decree-making"?
The one who has the confidence of the people. So Yeltsin is not the man
for the job; all he has ever done is rule by decree. Zhirinovsky would
also rule by decree if he were elected. Yavlinsky would not last ten
minutes if he tried to rule by decree. So that leaves Zyuganov as the only
one who has any amount of genuine popular support.
I agree with you when you say the "social-economic process in Russia are
too powerful to be easily turned this or that way." I just wish the
leadership in Russia and the West had understood that before they embarked
on their Holy Crusade to turn Russia into what they thought it ought to
be. They remind me very much of Peter I, of whom N.M. Karamzin said: "He
tried to turn Russia into Holland."
Henrietta
amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
In article <4n3drg$5...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) writes:
> <4mrq58$f...@kirin.wwa.com> <1996May9.180340.1@leif>
> Organization: WorldWide Access - Chicago Area Internet Services
> Distribution:
>
> amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
> : In article <4mrq58$f...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas)
> : writes:
>
> [snip]... to save bandwidth
>
> : pragmatizm and team of supporters than to any ideological characteristics.
> : BTW, I did not see any comments the media concerning this issue. Guess why?
> : IMO, when you try to describe candidates in terms of their ideology,
> : you still missed the most important issue - realism of a candidate.
> : And which is important as well, social- economic processes in Russia
> : are too powerful to be easily turned this or that way. Even small changes
> : requires huge and systematic interventions from authorities. Please ask
> : yourself, who of the candidate is able to act beyound "decree-making"?
>
> The one who has the confidence of the people. So Yeltsin is not the man
> for the job; all he has ever done is rule by decree. Zhirinovsky would
> also rule by decree if he were elected. Yavlinsky would not last ten
> minutes if he tried to rule by decree. So that leaves Zyuganov as the only
> one who has any amount of genuine popular support.
>
So, you believe that "people support" is more important for a ruler
in a transitional period? What about support of bureaucracy ("nomenklatura")
i.e., peoples who are capable to do real things? (in terms of governing/
management)
> I agree with you when you say the "social-economic process in Russia are
> too powerful to be easily turned this or that way." I just wish the
> leadership in Russia and the West had understood that before they embarked
> on their Holy Crusade to turn Russia into what they thought it ought to
> be. They remind me very much of Peter I, of whom N.M. Karamzin said: "He
> tried to turn Russia into Holland."
>
Unfortunately, all politician, does not matter how "fair" they behave
and how educated they are, tend to act according to their vested interests.
However, those who already have long term experience of power and act as a
part of the gang have more chances for objective evaluation. That's why
American democratic system, where congressmen and President concerned more
about personal short term nice-sound "achievements" than long term
perspective of events, does not suppose to help the objective
understanding.
"And leave Virginia alone! She is not like you!" (C) Rod Stuart.
Andrew
P.S. Another question: How widespread belief that "Yeltsin will manage
to stay on power does not matter who win the elections" could affect real
election results?
> Henrietta
>
Henrietta Thomas
Telos4 (tel...@aol.com) wrote:
: Henrietta asked how the Russian election affects all
I asked the question, so I will respond to each one of your points.
: How about a third reich with nuclear weapons. A dictatorship that is
: willing to use nuclear weapons as instruments of terror could
: successfully change the allignment of the whole world. Dictators can get
: away with stuff that a truly democratic society would merely discuss at
: lengthy policy debates.
Why does the future have to be so negative? And why is a dictatorship
assumed? BTW, some dictators are very benevolent. And some dictators have
had great support from the United States.
: I can't understand the idiots that keep pointing to the ineffectiveness of
: the Russian army. Don't these people understand that armies are not
: important except in keeping your own people in line. The United States
: didn't even want to occupy little Iraq. But you can be sure that the USA
: would have never attacked Iraq when it was allied with the Soviet Union of
: the 1970's.
Here I think you contradict yourself. First you say the army is important
only to keep your own people in line, then you say US was afraid to attack
Iraq when Iraq was allied with the Soviet Union. So I gather you are
saying that the military has both internal and external functions. Or are
you saying we were afraid of nuclear warfare rather than the Red Army? And
don't you think USSR feared us for the same reasons?
: The willingness to use nuclear weapons as instruments of terror would give
: a nation tremendous leverage. It's too bad the USA didn't have the guts
: to be willing to bomb any country that tested a nuclear weapon. The USA
: would have been able to bring about a true PAX AMERICANA.
The US should start with itself. It was the first to test nuclear weapons,
and the first to use them against another country. You are saying the US
should have a monopoly on weapons of mass destruction so as to assume
control over the entire world. That is not peace. That is government by
intimidation and coercion. A Damocles Sword hung over all.
: If Russia nuked Grozny Chechnya would be back in the fold already.
I am very glad Russia did not nuke Grozny. There wouldn't be any Chechnya
left to bring back into the fold.
: Unfortunately, elections or no elections somebody going to figure this
: out. Zhirinovsky certainly has. He's stupid for talking about it. But
: the Communists with their messianic fervor could easily imagine a few
: detonations are worthy of their cause.
I am glad Zhirinovsky talks about it. Maybe that's why he's gone down in
the polls on the presidential elections. Could it be Russian people don't
agree with all his warmongering? As to the Communists, I don't think all
of them are seized with "messianic fervor." And those who are may not
think nuking their enemies is a good idea. One reason the Cold War lasted
as long as it did was because both sides knew what would happen if either
of them made a first strike.
Henrietta
Dmitriy Rumynin
Dear, whoever you are!
That is time to start taking anti-depressant...
Sincerely,
Dmitriy
tel...@aol.com (Telos4) writes:
: Henrietta asked how the Russian election affects all
:
: How about a third reich with nuclear weapons. A dictatorship that is
: willing to use nuclear weapons as instruments of terror could
: successfully change the allignment of the whole world. Dictators can get
: away with stuff that a truly democratic society would merely discuss at
: lengthy policy debates.
:
: I can't understand the idiots that keep pointing to the ineffectiveness of
: the Russian army. Don't these people understand that armies are not
: important except in keeping your own people in line. The United States
: didn't even want to occupy little Iraq. But you can be sure that the USA
: would have never attacked Iraq when it was allied with the Soviet Union of
: the 1970's.
:
: The willingness to use nuclear weapons as instruments of terror would give
: a nation tremendous leverage. It's too bad the USA didn't have the guts
: to be willing to bomb any country that tested a nuclear weapon. The USA
: would have been able to bring about a true PAX AMERICANA.
:
: If Russia nuked Grozny Chechnya would be back in the fold already.
:
Telos4
<Time to take anti-depressants>
I'm not depressed. I just feel that if your are speculating you should
also include worse case scenarios. They have almost equal probability of
occurring as best case scenarios. Up til now the world as a whole has had
average luck. Individuals of hated gene-pools have had terrible luck.
As the blues singer says "If it wern fer bad luck I wunt hab no luck
attol"
Henrietta Thomas
amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
: In article <4n3drg$5...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas)
You know, I should have mentioned Lebed. His current rating is about the
same as Yavlinsky--roughly 8%. And I agree that his philosophy is sort of
halfway between Zhirinovsky and Yavlinsky.
: So, you believe that "people support" is more important for a ruler
: in a transitional period? What about support of bureaucracy ("nomenklatura")
: i.e., peoples who are capable to do real things? (in terms of governing/
: management)
Both are probably necessary. But it is extremely difficult to "get things
done" without the support of the people. So I would give an edge to
"people support" over bureaucracy. It is true, though, that lousy
bureaucrats can really mess things up. There is ample evidence of this in
the history of many countries, including Russia. And lousy bureaucrats can
turn the people against the government.
: > I agree with you when you say the "social-economic process in Russia are
: > too powerful to be easily turned this or that way." I just wish the
: > leadership in Russia and the West had understood that before they
: > embarked on their Holy Crusade to turn Russia into what they thought
: > it ought to be. They remind me very much of Peter I, of whom N.M.
: > Karamzin said: "He tried to turn Russia into Holland."
: >
: Unfortunately, all politician, does not matter how "fair" they behave
: and how educated they are, tend to act according to their vested interests.
: However, those who already have long term experience of power and act as a
: part of the gang have more chances for objective evaluation. That's why
: American democratic system, where congressmen and President concerned more
: about personal short term nice-sound "achievements" than long term
: perspective of events, does not suppose to help the objective
: understanding.
That is true. Politicians are only concerned about remaining in power and
do not plan too far into the future. This is true in every country in the
world, but more true in US than some others. One reason the Japanese were
able to beat us economically at our own game was because they did a lot of
long-term planning.
: "And leave Virginia alone! She is not like you!" (C) Rod Stuart.
I should hope not. :-)
: Andrew
: P.S. Another question: How widespread belief that "Yeltsin will manage
: to stay on power does not matter who win the elections" could affect real
: election results?
There are four ways I can think of for Yeltsin to stay in power "no
matter who wins the elections." The first, of course, is not to have any
elections at all. The second, to engage in creative vote counting so that
he will win by a narrow margin. The third, to find a way to cancel the
results. The fourth, to man the barricades. Another possibility might be
to make a deal with the real winner so that Yeltsin could remain behind
the scenes. (This is the situation in Chile, btw. Pinochet stepped down,
but he is still the real power behind the elected government.)
All of the above is pure speculation, however.
Regards,
Henrietta
--
***********************************************************************
Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood.
----Marie Curie
***********************************************************************
Henrietta Thomas
Henrietta Thomas (h...@wwa.com) wrote:
: amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
[snip].....
: : P.S. Another question: How widespread belief that "Yeltsin will manage
: : to stay on power does not matter who win the elections" could affect real
: : election results?
: There are four ways I can think of for Yeltsin to stay in power "no
: matter who wins the elections." The first, of course, is not to have any
: elections at all. The second, to engage in creative vote counting so that
: he will win by a narrow margin. The third, to find a way to cancel the
: results. The fourth, to man the barricades. Another possibility might be
: to make a deal with the real winner so that Yeltsin could remain behind
: the scenes. (This is the situation in Chile, btw. Pinochet stepped down,
: but he is still the real power behind the elected government.)
: All of the above is pure speculation, however.
I just read a couple of stories in ClariNews that Yeltsin has apparently
talked to both Yavlinsky and Fyodorov about making some kind of deal to
secure their support next month. This is a possible long shot. But the two
"democrats" have laid down such strong conditions that Yeltsin would be
nothing but a figurehead. Yavlinsky in particular demands "full speed
ahead" on Western-style reforms and massive changes in personnel in the
government. From what I have read in the Western press, I doubt if this
will work. Even if Yeltsin agreed, I think the people are fed up with all
of this "reform."
amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
In article <4n9brv$s...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) writes:
> amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
> : P.S. Another question: How widespread belief that "Yeltsin will manage
> : to stay on power does not matter who win the elections" could affect real
> : election results?
>
> There are four ways I can think of for Yeltsin to stay in power "no
> matter who wins the elections." The first, of course, is not to have any
> elections at all. The second, to engage in creative vote counting so that
> he will win by a narrow margin. The third, to find a way to cancel the
> results. The fourth, to man the barricades. Another possibility might be
> to make a deal with the real winner so that Yeltsin could remain behind
> the scenes. (This is the situation in Chile, btw. Pinochet stepped down,
> but he is still the real power behind the elected government.)
>
their "voting". IMHO, if people think that Yeltsin will stay in power
they won't be concerned enough to vote for him, but instead will
use elections to show their disappointment => more votes for Zuganov
Concerning your four scenarious : I would remove the last one (the people
on the top are too greedy and selfish) as well as the fourth one (Yeltsin
will hardly find enough men for new barricades ) What I would add - is a
variety of "Foros-like" scenarios: Yeltsin will become seriously ill
(for real or for beauty spot removal) and his inner circle will "accept
responsibility for the Russia's future".
AFAIR, Korzhakov is bald so it is fit to the Ivan Kovdy's theory of
hairy-bald sequence of Russian rulers :) BTW, the theory could be supported
by medicine (level of hormones) and psychology (ability of abstraction ),
but this is another story...
> All of the above is pure speculation, however.
>
But it could lead to better understanding of the events.
> Regards,
>
> Henrietta
>
> --
Regards
Andrew
************************************************************************
Life is empty and meaningless (Emerson)
Don't worry, be happy (from one old raggy pop song)
************************************************************************
David Johnson
IAlthough I have expressed views that are strongly critical
of Yeltsin I must admit that it sometimes seems hard to
figure out how to make judgements about Russia these
days. What standards should be applied? How to know if
there were alternatives to what has actually happened?
My general orientation, perhaps a bit too optimistic, is
that the Soviet Union under Gorbachev had made a very
good (and very surprising) start on developing a new political
culture with the growth of the rule of law, tolerance of differences,
and civil liberties.
This reflected the creeping intellectual concensus to embrace
what for lack of a better tem might be called "Western values."
Certainly there was a long way to go to get this good start
institutionalized but nevertheless the world was greatly surprised
at how the Soviet Union evolved in the late 1980s. My personal
theory of why this happened attributes a lot to the mass education
of the Soviet population and the increasing orientation of the
dominant cultural/intellectual/political elite toward Western
standards. Economic problems and, perhaps, Reaganesque
military pressure may have played some role but, for me, it was
more the maturing and openning of a society to external
influences and values that made the difference. The dominant
politicans in the CPSU participated in this evolving new political
culture, including some opponents of Gorbachev and Yeltsin.
Thus, I hold Yeltsin to perhaps a higher standard than some
who see Russia suffering under "centuries of tyranny" or
Stalinist political culture. I believe that Yeltsin's authoritarian
personality and willingness to embrace a radical economic
"reform" package inevitably led to a clash between
economic reform and democratic principles. Yeltsin rather
quickly began to skirt democratic and legal nicities in order
to keep the Gaidar "shock therapy" program (however gradually
diluted) on track in the face of rising public opposition. This
clash of popular opinion with economic catastrophe lay at
the heart of the conflict between Yeltsin and the "old"
parliament. This parliament was elected in 1990 in an election
that was widely praised in the Western press for its innovative
fairness and diversity. We must note that Russia's "first elected
president" (Yeltsin) was also elected in the Soviet era when the
CPSU was still very influential.
What is particularly pernicious about Yeltsin is the way in which
he has taken a giant step back in reversing the emergence of
a political system that tolerated diversity and dissent. In order
to try to keep shock therapy underway Yeltsin went out of his
way to demonized all opposition. In this he had the eager
collaboration of the Moscow intelligentsia who served in
many respects as agitprop activists attacking Yeltsin's
opponents as "Red/Fascists." Yeltsin's control of most of
the mass media (particularly television) was crucial in shaping
the referendum in the spring of 1993 that Yeltsin interpreted as
an endorsement of his policies in the run up to the assault
on Parliament in October 1993. That referendum was conducted
after the crudest of television propaganda campaigns. Rutskoi
and Khasbulatov were accused (mostly falsely) of the most
extraordinary crimes and misdeeds. There were reports in the
New York Times and the Washington Post that the United
States government was encouraging Yeltsin to take "tough"
steps against the then-oppositional Parliament. And that's what
happened. Yelstin could (and should) have compromised with
the Parliament but he was tempermentally incapable. Note that
after the December 1993 he adopted many of the policies
earlier advocated by Rutskoi and Khasbulatov.
Speaking of referenda, we might remember the one that
took place in 1991 where a large majority of the Soviet
population endorsed the continuation of the united Soviet
Union. I don't think that any one has questioned the
authenticity of this result. But Yeltsin completely ignored
this at the end of the year when he capriciously disolved
the USSR. (My reading of this is that Yeltsin was primarily
interested in completing his dethronement of Gorbachev
more than having some careful plan for getting rid of the
Union.)
I know it sometimes feels like Russia is on the verge of
disaster in the form of a Zhirinovsky or a Communist
president. I think we have to learn to be more tolerant
and accepting of alternative politicians of whatever
stripe. Even if we think politicians (or the voters) are
wrong we must permit the democratic system to work.
That's the only way that such a system will grow and
endure. Remember that back under Gorbachev the
dominant Western view was that there was no
acceptable alternative to Gorbachev. People could
not conceive of other realities. We have now accumulated
additional experience in Eastern Europe which should
encourage more toleration of leftist politicians.
I do think that the United States had "meddled"
extensively in Russia over the past four years. Our
economic carrots have exercised great influence
on Russian policy. Americans have had extensive
contact with the "democrats" and considerable
money has been spent to support them. The activites
of various overt and covert agencies have been
very extensive (the dollar buys a lot) in trying to, as they
say, promote democracy and free enterprise. The mission
of "saving" Russia from being taken over by the
Communists again is probably the top US foreign policy
objective. Any US president who can be accused of
"losing" Russia will be in deep trouble.
I do not question (much) the good intentions of
Americans in Russia but good intention, as we perhaps
saw in Vietnam, don't mean very much when you don't
understand what you are doing or the consequences.
The United States has been helping to undermine
democracy and the rule of law in Russia because of
our single-minded commitment to Yeltsin and his
entourage. We are destroying the very thing we allege
we are trying to help. I am very fearful of the enormous
chasm between views of Russia in Washington and
the realities on the ground in Russia and the anguish
of those millions of Russians outside of the "democrats"
that we refuse to accept as legitimate.
Enough for now.
David Johnson
Center for Defense Information
djoh...@cdi.org
http://www.cdi.org
Henrietta Thomas
amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
: In article <4n9brv$s...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas)
: writes:
: > amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
:
: > : P.S. Another question: How widespread belief that "Yeltsin will manage
: > : real election results?
: >
: > There are four ways I can think of for Yeltsin to stay in power "no
: > matter who wins the elections." The first, of course, is not to have any
: > elections at all. The second, to engage in creative vote counting so that
: > he will win by a narrow margin. The third, to find a way to cancel the
: > results. The fourth, to man the barricades. Another possibility might be
: > to make a deal with the real winner so that Yeltsin could remain behind
: > the scenes. (This is the situation in Chile, btw. Pinochet stepped down,
: > but he is still the real power behind the elected government.)
: Well, I meant not Yeltsin's actions but how people's belief may influence
: their "voting". IMHO, if people think that Yeltsin will stay in power
: they won't be concerned enough to vote for him, but instead will
: use elections to show their disappointment => more votes for Zuganov
That is possible. And that may explain the high ratings Zyuganov is
getting in the polls. A vote for Zyuganov is a protest against Yeltsin's
policies, and not necessarily a vote _for_ Zyuganov's policies. This is,
of course, what happened with Zhirinovsky. Most people voted for him as a
way to protest; they knew he had no chance to win. And his chances are
even less now.
(Sorry I misunderstood you.)
: Concerning your four scenarious : I would remove the last one (the people
: on the top are too greedy and selfish) as well as the fourth one (Yeltsin
: will hardly find enough men for new barricades ) What I would add - is a
: variety of "Foros-like" scenarios: Yeltsin will become seriously ill
: (for real or for beauty spot removal) and his inner circle will "accept
: responsibility for the Russia's future".
That is entirely possible. The "inner circle" is already in charge, I
understand. So Yeltsin, IMHO, is already not much more than a figurehead.
There could also be a change in the inner circle. I read some articles in
ClariNews that Yavlinsky and Fyodorov had both set down some hard
conditions to throw their support to Yeltsin. They want to call the shots
in the new government.
: AFAIR, Korzhakov is bald so it is fit to the Ivan Kovdy's theory of
: hairy-bald sequence of Russian rulers :) BTW, the theory could be supported
: by medicine (level of hormones) and psychology (ability of abstraction ),
: but this is another story...
Korzhakov is not a candidate. But I understand he already has a heavy hand
in the government. So if Yeltsin is re-elected, it is entirely possible
that Korzhakov will come out more and more in the open. But I doubt if
Korzhakov would be any kind of "benevolent" dictator.
: > All of the above is pure speculation, however.
: >
: But it could lead to better understanding of the events.
That is what some of us are here for. To try to get a better understanding
of the events as they unfold.
SPETS1
I'm curious, isn't there a relatively large voting group in the armed
services
of Russia (VSR) that supports Lebed? I would presuppose that the special
services of Russia (SSR) would tend not to vote his way after the fiasco
with
the FSK and Yel'tsin.
However, I'm wondering if the VSR and the MVD might not place their
votes on A. Lebed to support a return to a stronger and more vital
military and law enforcement infrastructure. Do you think they would
really go to Zhirinovskiy or even Yel'tsin?
Spets1
amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
In article <4ne6go$j...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) writes:
> amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
> : Well, I meant not Yeltsin's actions but how people's belief may influence
> : their "voting". IMHO, if people think that Yeltsin will stay in power
> : they won't be concerned enough to vote for him, but instead will
> : use elections to show their disappointment => more votes for Zuganov
>
> That is possible. And that may explain the high ratings Zyuganov is
> getting in the polls. A vote for Zyuganov is a protest against Yeltsin's
> policies, and not necessarily a vote _for_ Zyuganov's policies. This is,
> of course, what happened with Zhirinovsky. Most people voted for him as a
> way to protest; they knew he had no chance to win. And his chances are
> even less now.
>
IMHO, this component of the voters behaviour has not revealed itself yet,
i.e. it is not reflected in the opinions polls but will be "found"
only after election, when real number of voters for Yeltsin will be low
that expected as well as number of those who abstained will be higher.
Anyway, this is only one of many components, which seems to be missed by
observers/analysts
>
> : AFAIR, Korzhakov is bald so it is fit to the Ivan Kovdy's theory of
> : hairy-bald sequence of Russian rulers :) BTW, the theory could be supported
> : by medicine (level of hormones) and psychology (ability of abstraction ),
> : but this is another story...
>
> Korzhakov is not a candidate. But I understand he already has a heavy hand
> in the government. So if Yeltsin is re-elected, it is entirely possible
> that Korzhakov will come out more and more in the open. But I doubt if
> Korzhakov would be any kind of "benevolent" dictator.
>
Here I have to disagree. I still evaluate chances of such "quasi-coup de
etat" as 20-30%. Korzhakov is the only really "power" minister now, i.e.
he has large military forces which could fight and obey his orders.
And, IMHO, there 30-40 % probability that Yeltsin will have new heart
attack during next month or two, What will happen in this case?
> : > All of the above is pure speculation, however.
> : >
> : But it could lead to better understanding of the events.
>
> That is what some of us are here for. To try to get a better understanding
> of the events as they unfold.
>
As well as some point at some issues which are missed by media
(is it intentionally?)
Regards
Andrew
PS. Be careful with Clarinet news - too much shallow articles and
simplifications. Russian media is a little bit more informative (if you
know how to read between the lines)
Henrietta Thomas
amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
: In article <4ne6go$j...@kirin.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) writes:
: > amir...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
: > : Well, I meant not Yeltsin's actions but how people's belief may influence
: > : their "voting". IMHO, if people think that Yeltsin will stay in power
: > : they won't be concerned enough to vote for him, but instead will
: > : use elections to show their disappointment => more votes for Zuganov
: >
: > That is possible. And that may explain the high ratings Zyuganov is
: > getting in the polls. A vote for Zyuganov is a protest against Yeltsin's
: > policies, and not necessarily a vote _for_ Zyuganov's policies. This is,
: > of course, what happened with Zhirinovsky. Most people voted for him as a
: > way to protest; they knew he had no chance to win. And his chances are
: > even less now.
: >
: IMHO, this component of the voters behaviour has not revealed itself yet,
: i.e. it is not reflected in the opinions polls but will be "found"
: only after election, when real number of voters for Yeltsin will be low
: that expected as well as number of those who abstained will be higher.
: Anyway, this is only one of many components, which seems to be missed by
: observers/analysts
The reasons people vote the way they do are very complicated. A vote _for_
Candidate A may be a vote _for_ Candidate A or it may be a vote _against_
Candidate B. Abstentions are even harder to figure out. All that can be
said for certain is that the abstainers did not have sufficient motive to
vote. (There was a vote in Cambodia not too long ago where people _walked_
miles and miles just to get to the voting place because it was important
to them.) The political pundits (observers/analysts) always try to put a
spin on the vote, but they really don't know too much more than you and I
do. They are just speculating.
: >
: > : AFAIR, Korzhakov is bald so it is fit to the Ivan Kovdy's theory of
: > : hairy-bald sequence of Russian rulers :) BTW, the theory could be supported
: > : by medicine (level of hormones) and psychology (ability of abstraction ),
: > : but this is another story...
: >
: > Korzhakov is not a candidate. But I understand he already has a heavy hand
: > in the government. So if Yeltsin is re-elected, it is entirely possible
: > that Korzhakov will come out more and more in the open. But I doubt if
: > Korzhakov would be any kind of "benevolent" dictator.
: >
: Here I have to disagree. I still evaluate chances of such "quasi-coup de
: etat" as 20-30%. Korzhakov is the only really "power" minister now, i.e.
: he has large military forces which could fight and obey his orders.
: And, IMHO, there 30-40 % probability that Yeltsin will have new heart
: attack during next month or two, What will happen in this case?
Depends on whether it is a real heart attack or faked. If faked, it could
lead to your little "quasi-coup d'etat." But if real, a new election would
be called for. Whether said new election would be allowed would be another
question. Yeltsin is not well, and should really step down.
: > : > All of the above is pure speculation, however.
: > : >
: > : But it could lead to better understanding of the events.
: >
: > That is what some of us are here for. To try to get a better understanding
: > of the events as they unfold.
: >
: As well as some point at some issues which are missed by media
: (is it intentionally?)
Yes, I think at least some of it is intentional. There are a lot of things
going on we don't know anything about.
: Regards
: Andrew
: PS. Be careful with Clarinet news - too much shallow articles and
: simplifications. Russian media is a little bit more informative (if you
: know how to read between the lines)
ClariNet is mostly UPI and Reuters. They feed news to the entire USA. That
is one of the reasons so much of our news is shallow and simplified. So I
do not take everything I read there as gospel, and try to be selective
what I post to the newsgroup.
Agree that Russian media may be better in some respects, but most of it is
in Russian, and that puts English-speakers at a disadvantage. But I'm glad
it is there for you, because I know you want to get the best information
you can.