Mike Gurstein posted an article by Georgy Arbatov, from which I've snipped
the following:
> In particular, the present crisis signifies such a complete failure of
>American policy toward Russia that, given the right spark, relations could
>rapidly deteriorate or even fall into the pattern of a new Cold War. Anti
>American sentiment is already higher now than at any time since 1991. Calls
>for the resignation of Yeltsin are mounting.
> Gaidar and his young team had no practical experience in free markets when
>they were put in charge of wrecking what was left of the Russian economy.
>Unknown economists, they had industriously studied and practiced Marxist
>economics. Then, having read Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, they
>immediately became zealous economic liberals. In the space of several
>months, they wanted to wipe away the social, financial and industrial
>infrastructure of 70 years of centralized socialism and put in its place
>the kind of free markets that took centuries to develop in the West. If
>people suffered inordinately, it was only proof of just how bad the old
>system really was.
>Thus, a very important role was played in the destruction of the Russian
>economy by outside advice, above all from Western leaders, the IMF and
>Harvard economic specialists. Their advice to stick with shock therapy at
>all costs was as unanimous as it was wrong. As a result, today the Russian
>gross domestic product has fallen by 50% from the time of perestroika.
To which I would say "Yes, yes, this is probably what happened. Both the
west and western oriented Russians read the situation very wrongly."
But another thought has crossed my mind recently. We must not overlook that
when the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia lost its eastern European satellites
and its ties with its former republics were greatly weakened. The
impression one gets from talking with people from former satellites such as
Poland or Hungary is that, over a four decade period, the Russians bled
these countries dry. The republics were bled over a much longer period.
One cannot help but wonder about the extent to which the loss of the ability
to bleed affected Russia. How dependent was Russia on a continuous flow of
tribute from its empire? To what extent did Russia have an economy of its
own, and to what extent was it dependent on the economies of others? Look
at it this way: At least some eastern European countries are now thriving
while Russia continues to decline.
Ed Weick
