[Marxism] Putin - a reality check

["David Quarter" <davidquarter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From:                   Jim Yarker


[mentions the OSCE report.  The U.S. is a member state of
OSCE.  Did the latter say boo over the authorities? handling of 9-
11? Waco?  This is hypocrisy in its purest form. But hypocrisy with
a purpose of course, and don?t count on the Western Left to figure
out what it is. ? jy]

http://www.oscewatch.org/LatestNews.asp?ArticleID=48
                  Vladimir Putin Date: 23 September 2004
According to the Western media, Russian president, Vladimir
Putin, is a dictator in the classic tyrannical mode who muzzles
the press, imprisons his opponents and centralises power. Worst
of all, he has invaded and brutalised a restless province ?
Chechnya - which could be the prelude to an upsurge of Russian
expansionism. These allegations have been around for some time
but have intensified with the recent Beslan siege. The once cosy
relations with Blair and Bush also seem to have frozen. When did
you last see Tony Blair hailing his friend ?Vladimir? at a Downing
Street press conference? As for Bush, he talks with a forked
tongue offering sympathetic bromides about terrorism while his
spokesmen fret about the future of ?democracy? in Russia.

Wild conspiracy theories accusing Putin of standing behind the
terrorism in Russia and profiting from it appear in leading
newspapers. For instance, the usually sober-sided Martin Wolf told
readers of the Financial Times "We make common cause with
Putin at our peril" because of "the bombings that preceded his first
election and then as conveniently ceased gave him the
presidency."

See Financial Times, 22ndSeptember, 2004
http://news.ft.com/home/uk
Like many journalists, Mr. Wolf is repeating Boris Berezovsky?s
well-funded conspiracy theory that Putin?s KGB blew up hundreds
of Russians to gain backing from a dazed public in order to re-
launch the Chechen war. This overlooks the fact that Chechen
separatists led by Shamil Basayev invaded Dagestan before the
apartment bombings and that terrorist attacks on Russian civilians
have carried on since any possible gain to Mr Putin from staging
them has long past. After 9-11, Mr Bush?s popularity soared and
there were no further Islamic terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, but
would any responsible newspaper like the Financial Times allege
that because Bush benefited from the actions of 19 suicide
bombers he was behind them?!

Repetition of the allegation by a clique of Western journalists in
Moscow does not make modern Russia into a predatory police
state. The country supports a vibrant media with numerous
newspapers, magazines and designated web sites which oppose
the president and his policies. Allegations of crackdowns on the
press and opposition parties turn out to be exaggerated claims
based on a handful of incidents, the most high profile being the
dismissal of Raf Shakirov, Izvestia?seditor, for what the proprietors
designated as inappropriate coverage of the Beslan tragedy. When
state television?s main channel was run by Boris Berezovsky
(before he fell out with Vladimir Putin) it was certainly no more
open to alternative points of view. In fact, the common complaint by
Western Putin-bashers is that time-serving hacks from the Yeltsin
era, always called ?respected independent commentators? in the
Western media, were sacked under Putin as Berezovsky and co.
had removed their predecessors who had fawned on the wrong
regime before 1991.

Hypocritical commentators seem to have forgotten the sackings of
the BBC?s chairman, Gavin Davies, and its director general,
Greg Dyke, following the broadcast of what turned out to be a
basically true report about weapons of mass destruction during the
Iraq war. Or think of the fate of Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan who
published faked photographs of ill-treatment of Iraqis by British
troops at a time when a cowed media refused to print real
information and photographs about similar incidents. Was that a
?dirty operation? to head off other journalists from prying into the
?dirty war? against anti-coalition forces in Iraq?

Western media criticism has focussed on the Russian authorities
refusal to allow two journalists, Andrei Babitsky and Anna
Politkovskaya, both supporters of the Chechen cause, to travel to
Beslan during the siege. Afterwards, Politkovskaya made vague
allegations about being ?poisoned? (presumably by the state
organs) but no evidence has been produced to date.

Then, along comes the OSCE, adding fuel to the fire. In a report
issued on 16th September, we learn that:

?Russia 'impeded media' in Beslan

Stephen Dalziel, BBC Russian affairs analyst




The Russian authorities seriously impeded the work of
journalists during the Beslan school siege, the 55-nation
OSCE says in a scathing report.
The authorities gave incorrect information and local people
attacked journalists, says the Organisation for Security and
Co-operation in Europe. The report reads like a catalogue of
how not to handle reporting of a crisis. At least 338 people -
nearly half of them children - died in Beslan.
The OSCE suggests that media coverage of the school siege
has given rise to a triple credibility gap: between the Russian
government and the media; between the media and the
people; and between the government and the people.
Harassment
It speaks of incorrect information being provided by the
government. The official figure for the number of hostages
was given as 354, although five days after the siege ended,
the prosecutor-general said there had been almost 1,200
hostages.
Some journalists were singled out for rough treatment,
notably Anna Politkovskaya, who has angered the Kremlin
with her reporting on the war in Chechnya; and Andrei
Babitsky, who was arrested in Chechnya some years ago.
Both were prevented from getting to Beslan. Ms
Politkovskaya was mysteriously poisoned and Mr Babitsky
was falsely detained in Moscow.
There were also cases of foreign journalists being hindered
in their work, including at least four television crews having
their films confiscated. The OSCE report claims that it was a
direct result of the limited Russian television coverage of the
siege that led the hostage-takers to stop giving water to the
hostages.
Inaccurate reporting was responsible, too, it is claimed, for
attacks on journalists by the local population. The OSCE
does not believe that this was merely a mishandling of the
situation. It states that, in "covering terrorist attacks, some
Russian politicians continue to be guided by what is
expedient from their point of view, rather than by what is
legal".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/3662124.stm
Published: 2004/09/16

It is true that there was confusion at Beslan during the siege. But it
is easy to criticize people thrust into such an unexpected and
terrifying situation. No doubt, the local authorities could have
handled things better. As for providing the media with an
incomplete number of the hostages, perhaps this was part of the
confusion rather than a sinister plot to play down the tragedy. No
such criticism was levelled at the US for failing to stop 9/11 or for
giving out conflicting and inaccurate figures for those killed in the
attacks, neither did the press complain about being ?fettered? in
their reporting that day. And, if foreign journalists were ?hindered? in
their work at Beslan, how come that ITV?s Julian Manyon could
boast about being the first person into the school gym (plus
cameraman) on 3rd September?

In fact, the most serious attack on a journalist in Russia
occurred recently, on 9th July, 2004, when Paul Klebnikov, a US
citizen of Russian descent and the bureau chief of Forbes
magazine, was murdered in Moscow. In 2000, Klebnikov had
published a damning account of oligarch Boris Berezovsky?s
financial doings, ?Godfather of the Kremlin?, which also included
evidence of Berezovsky?s financing of Chechen separatists like
Shamil Basayev. Klebnikov had written favourably about Putin?s
economic policies. After Paul Klebnikov?s murder, Mr Berezovsky
was quoted referring to ?inaccuracies? in his reporting which might
?give offence.? Most of the rest of the Western journalists in
Moscow were repeating the oligarchs? refrain that Putin had turned
against them by letting prosecutors pursue the new rich for tax-
frauds and was thus turning Russia into a new Zimbabwe! See,
Kim Iskayan, ?Is Russia the Next Zimbabwe? Putin's crusade
against Yukos could be economic suicide?, Slate.com, 30th July,
2004, http://slate.msn.com/id/2104542/

No wonder, perhaps, that Klebnikov?s death received a less sympathetic coverage 
than Ms. Politkovskaya?s ?poisoning? in the
Western press.

Ordinary Russians are aware that the Western media covered the
Beslan tragedy from a standpoint critical of the authorities while the
terrorists were regularly referred to in less emotive terms, like
?hostage takers? and ?separatists?. On 20thSeptember The
Guardian?s ?Media Monkey? Diary reported:

?When is a terrorist not a terrorist. When it?s a Beslan
terrorist, according to the BBC. One big-name presenter tells
Monkey he saw red over verbal reminders from programme
makers not to use the term terrorists ? hostage takers,
extremists, and rebels were deemed preferable. However,
BBC news executive Vin Ray says no specific guidance was
given and journalists who used the term terrorist weren?t
carpeted. As the tragedy unfolded, it seems they were most
in tune with what the BBC audience expected?.

See The Guardian, 20thSeptember, 2004 www.guardian.co.uk

Russians also oppose the West?s demands for Russia to ?negotiate? with the 
Chechens, pointing out that George Bush has not sat down with Osama bin Laden. 
After the siege,
demonstrators in Moscow held up placards, written in English,
saying ?Want to help ? extradite Zakayev? (Akhmed Zakayev
wanted on murder and terrorist charges was given political asylum in the UK in 
2003) but the large numbers who attended the
protests in many Russian cities following Beslan were all,
according to the Western media ?bussed in? by the government and
trade unions ? a group not known for its organizational clout in post - 
Communist Russia.

?Picture this: watching a Russian tragedy through western
eyes
By Ajay Goyal
September 10, 2004 Posted: 12:45 Moscow time (08:45 GMT)
Picture this. You are watching a US news network. It is
September 11, 2001, just after 10 am. Two planes have hit the World Trade 
Towers in New York. It is now known that Arab
terrorists were on board those planes. It is also known that two more planes 
have been hijacked and are plunging towards
Washington DC. At this time, the news network cuts its live
video footage of World Trade Towers and returns to its studio,
and the anchor introduces its two experts as the screen splits
in two halves. On one half, studio cameras focus on a person
introduced as a professor at Kings & Queens College in
London and an expert in Middle Eastern conflicts, and the
second expert?, a former police commando who led a raid
against a bank robber who was holding bank employees and
customers hostage in 1967. The bank robber died in that raid
and all hostages were freed. The professor has studied middle
east and terrorism for many years.?. The other side of the
screen shifts to images from Palestinian refugee archive
footage of dead bodies of those killed in Israeli bombing raids
in Lebanon. 

The anchor first turns to the professor, "Professor, what do you think these 
rebels on the planes heading towards Washington
DC want?" "Well," says the young professor, oozing with sex
appeal, dressed in her festive best and loaded with jewelry
probably rented for the occasion, "Ron, there is lots of
frustration in the Islamic world. There is no resolution in sight to the 
Israeli occupation of Palestine and the US troops are
very visible in the region. There is no hope. Young kids are
protesting on streets and shot at by soldiers. No one wants to
talk to these people and the Bush White House has alienated
the moderate elements in Palestine by supporting the hard line
of Ariel Sharon. In the absence of dialogue, we are seeing
desperate acts by freedom fighters from this region, which are,
of course, deplorable but understandable" 

The anchor now informs the viewers in a grim voice, "We will
now take a short break and will be back to talk to our
terrorism expert and to Sandy from our research desk, who
will give you a timeline of the Middle Eastern conflict. We are,
of course, following the horrible events of this morning when
some rebels hijacked two civilian planes and crashed them
into the World Trade towers. Another group of separatists,
thought to be Arab freedom fighters is said to be on two
planes that are headed towards Washington DC. No demands
have been made and the government sources are unsure how
many people were on those planes or inside the buildings." 

If this all sounds like too cruel a joke to you, I can tell you
that this is how many networks covered the seizure of an
elementary school in Beslan in southern Russia on the first of
September. I saw a Russian tragedy through western eyes
for three days this September. I do not know how the Beslan
siege coverage seemed and sounded to British public for the
first two days -- but it appeared remarkably similar to the
parody of 9/11 coverage I have concocted above. It was
repulsive.?

For the whole article, see:
http://www.therussiajournal.com/index.
Maybe Russia will reassert itself as a great power, but the post-Beslan 
message is that, for now, the country is on the back foot. 15 years have 
been spent cosying up to the West and what has
been gained? Carefully concealed behind all the propaganda
labelling Putin as a new Stalin, is the reality of Russia?s retreat into 
impotence.

Consider the following examples of Russia?s ?great power? policies,
all of which took place on Putin?s watch:

· It is 2001 and Vladimir Putin is the first head of state to offer 
George Bush condolences after the terrorist outrages on 11th
September. The Russian president follows this up by putting no
obstacles in the way when the US opens military bases in two
former Soviet republics, Uzebkistan and Kyrgyzstan, prior to the
invasion of Afghanistan. There is more: the Kremlin facilitates
contacts with the pro-Russian forces in Afghanistan, the Northern
Alliance, which basically ensures a quick military victory over the
Taliban.

· The ring of US and NATO bases and other military facilities
surrounding Russia, therefore, continues to expand. In 2004, the
three Baltic States which fell into the Western orbit long before
Putin came on the scene become NATO?s newest members. Now,
sophisticated listening posts lie just 40 miles away from Russia?s
second city, St. Petersburg. Putin?s government has made mild
criticism of NATO expansion, but done nothing to stop it.

· Meanwhile, large Russian minorities in the Baltic States of
Latvia and Estonia are humiliated and persecuted by their
governments. Education in the Russian language is on the way out
for Latvia?s Russian school children and the same will happen in
Estonia, only more gradually. The infrastructure in Russian
populated regions is allowed to collapse. In Estonia anti-Russian
propaganda is now so extreme that ordinary people blame all their
woes on Russia ? including all crime, traffic accidents and,
probably, the weather. Soviet war memorials are desecrated and
even removed. Although this flies in the face of EU norms for
treatment of minorities, Brussels and Strasbourg have failed to act.
More to the point, when ordinary Russians in Latvia are asked
whether they receive any support over their plight from Moscow, the
answer is ?none?.

· Also, in 2002 Russia caved in to demands from Lithuania
(pop. 21/2 m.) for visas to be imposed on Russian citizens
travelling through the country to and from the Russian enclave of
Kaliningrad. So much for the Europe without borders. Lithuania is
also one of the centres of pro-Chechen propaganda and hosts
the web site of Shamil Basayev (www.kavkazcentr.com.) which, among other 
things, recently justified the killings of Russian children at Beslan as a 
legitimate response to the killings of children in Chechnya. On 18th September 
the Lithuanian
government bowed to pressure from Moscow and closed down the site ? 
temporarily.

?Lithuania shuts Chechen rebel site"

Lithuania has temporarily shut down a website publishing
information on the activities of Chechen rebel leaders.
The website - kavkazcenter.com - was apparently used by
Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev to claim responsibility
for the Russian school siege. Correspondents say the
Lithuanian ambassador in Moscow was summoned to the
Russian foreign ministry and told to stop the website's
activities. At least 320 hostages, many children, were killed
in the Beslan massacre. Russia is offering $10m for the
capture of the Chechen rebel commander.
Instigation charge
The website operating from the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius,
was shut by the country's state security department. It
displays a message saying that it has been temporarily
disabled pending the outcome of a court decision on its
legality. A spokesman for the security department, Vytautas
Makauskas, told Russian media the decision was "in
accordance with the laws of the country".
A website could be stopped temporarily if "the fact that it
disseminates information which contains propaganda of
terrorism and incites interethnic strife is in evidence", Ria
news agency quoted him as saying. After a meeting of the
defence council on Friday, Lithuanian Prime Minister
Algirdas Brazauskas said the site could be shut down. "Our
country's law prohibits terrorism propaganda and the
instigation of ethnic hatred. We must take legal steps to stop the spreading of 
this kind of information," Mr Brazauskas
said.
The Chechen rebel website is based on a server in the flat of
well-known Soviet-era dissident and political prisoner
Viktoras Petkus. Mr Petkus told the Baltic News Service on
Friday that the decision was "a shameful obsequiousness
against another state's will". Lithuanian authorities have
been trying to shut down the site - hosted by Elneta service
provider - since last year.
But the case has gone before the country's Supreme Court
and a ruling is expected next year. ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/3669624.stm, 18th
September, 2004 
· Over the past ten years the West has interfered in the
election process in most of the post Soviet republics. NGOs and
bogus political parties have been set up to further US, EU and IMF
sponsored policies everywhere except, so far, Turkmenistan
whose president Nyazov has refused access to the usual clutch of
Soros-inspired democracy builders. In Belarus, Azerbaijan,
Uzbekistan and Armenia these groups continue to harass elected
governments and beat the drum for ?reform?. In October 2004,
Ukraine goes to the polls to elect a new president. The West?s
preferred candidate, Victor Yushchenko is a favourite to win,
carried along by massive funding and propaganda from the West.
What, one wonders, would Washington do if there was such
egregious interference from Russia in the elections in say Mexico
or Canada? But, again, Moscow sits back and does nothing.

· Perhaps Russia?s most suicidal capitulation to the West?s
agenda of expanding its influence in the former Soviet space
occurred in Georgia last year. In November 2003, Russia?s Foreign
Minister, Igor Ivanov went to Tbilisi and ordered President Eduard
Shevardnadze to resign after Western sponsored oppositionists
staged what became known as the ?rose revolution? after the
Shevardnadze regime allegedly rigged parliamentary elections
held that month. Although Shevardnadze had done everything the
West wanted over the past ten years it was suggested that several
former Soviet holdovers in his government were too pro-Russian.
Presumably, they were the people responsible for preventing
terrorists using Georgia?s Pankisi Gorge to infiltrate arms and men
into neighbouring Chechnya. Within days of Shevardnadze?s
departure from power, Boris Berezovsky, an acknowledged
supporter of the Chechen cause visited Tbilisi on an unexplained
mission. The Russians attacked the Georgian authorities for
allowing him free passage - Berezovsky is wanted in Moscow
under an Interpol warrant on various charges relating to fraud and
extortion. Again, nothing happened. But, since Berezovsky?s
mysterious visit, violence has escalated in the North Caucasus.

As if to further destroy its friends in the region, Mr. Ivanov appeared
on Georgian soil again, this time in May 2004. His destination was
the autonomous region of Adjara whose president, Aslan
Abashidze, was targeted by his own local mini-rose revolution.
Abashidze was all too aware that the new ?reform? government in
Tbilisi under its Western-educated president, Mikheil Saakashvili,
wanted him out. Since Saakashvili came to power Abashidze had
visited Moscow several times seeking support. He got none. As
with Shevardnadze, Mr. Ivanov told him to resign, but with the
consolation prize of exile rather than practical help from Russia. All
this happened under the eyes of Russian troops based at Batumi
airport. Although only a handful in number they could, no doubt,
have put the rag tag oppositionists and Soros-supported NGOs to
flight had they emerged from their barracks. They never did.

· In the last 3 months, Saakashvili has begun threatening to
bring Georgia?s breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia
back under Tbilisi?s control. For very understandable reasons
(Georgia is an economic basket case) both say they will resist re-
occupation, demanding incorporation into Russia proper. Violence
has already broken out between the Ossetes and Georgian troops
now heavily reinforced and re-equipped by US trained personnel.
However, unlike the regime in Adjara, South Ossetia has not (yet)
collapsed under almost daily attacks and provocations. In fact, it
seems to be the Georgians that have endured the most
casualties. Although allegations are made that the Russian
military is aiding the regime in Tskinvali, no real proof has been
forthcoming. On past form, another Caucasian domino is likely to
fall into the West? lap, even though, this time, the victims might
put up more of a fight.

· Some Russian commentators see the Beslan siege as part
of a campaign to sow chaos and disarray in the north Caucasus.
The theory goes, that the North Ossetians, preoccupied with the
fallout from the terrorist attack, will be less likely to come to the
assistance of their ethnic brothers in South Ossetia, thus easing
Georgia?s attempts to reincorporate the latter. Again, Moscow?s
weakness and tendency to turn a blind eye to corruption in the
police and local security apparatus have meant that the situation is
nearly out of control. Dark hints are made by both President Putin
and Foreign Minister Lavrov that ?foreign elements? are involved in
supporting terrorism in the region, but little is done to get to grips
with them. Over the past few years at least some trouble makers
will have infiltrated Chechen refugee camps in Ingushetia posing
as academics, aid workers and journalists.

Numerous other instances of Russia?s cravenness in its own back
yard could be spelt out. Were any of them strategically
necessary? Although Russia has been buffeted about since the
collapse of the Soviet Union, it still has many arrows in its quiver to
resist ill wishers. First and foremost, it is a nuclear power which
still acts as a deterrent. Secondly, it is a senior member of
numerous international organizations like the UN, OSCE and
Council of Europe. Why does it not defend the treatment of
Russian minorities in the near abroad more robustly in these
organizations, for example. And even though Moscow has started
(gingerly) to criticize the OSCE, its only response to blatant
politicking by OSCE observers after the March presidential election
in Russia was a minor display of ruffled feathers. The OSCE
demands unanimity for much of its decision-making. Why not
occasionally
throw a spanner in the works?

As for the UN, over the past 12 years Russia has approved many
US-sponsored resolutions, including the one that led to the war in
Iraq. It has abstained over others, including recent demands that
Sudan disarm the Janjaweed militia and Syria cease to interfere in
Lebanon?s internal affairs ? in both cases the issues involved could
come back one day to haunt them. Russia has only once vetoed
a UN Security Council resolution in the past ten years and that
was over a bit of relatively meaningless US grand standing ? the
recommendation that both communities on the island of Cyprus
should vote in favour of the despised Annan Plan.

On the diplomatic front, Moscow has also failed to show any clout.
Although there was much gnashing of teeth over Britain?s decision
to give political asylum to Berezovsky and Chechen warlord,
Ahkmed Zakayev a process replicated by the US in August 2004
when the US gave asylum to Ilyas Akhmadov, there was no
breaking off of diplomatic relations or the withdrawal of any British
or US diplomats from Moscow in protest. Again, more sulks, but
business as usual.

Lastly, Russia has enormous economic clout as a major exporter
of gas and electricity not only to the former Soviet space but also
to Western Europe. It could also price its oil in euros rather than
dollars. Now that would put the cat among the pigeons!

Ironically, it is Yukos?s Mikhail Khodorkovsky who, even though on
trial for defrauding the Russian tax collectors of billions of dollars,
showed how to use the oil weapon. His company radically reduced
oil shipments to China by playing the geo-strategic oil game itself
and demonstrating Putin?s weak hold on power! See ?Yukos
slashes exports to China?, The Moscow Times, 20th September,
2004
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/09/20/002.html]
No doubt, President Putin?s supporters would say that Russia is
too weak to throw its weight about. They would point out that the
president has concentrated on improving the country?s economic
health over the past four years. Until that happens, Russia must
look inwards. And, it seems that the economy has made
remarkable strides since Putin came to power, helped, no doubt,
by rising oil prices and the side lining of greedy oligarchs. Imports
are down and agricultural production is up ? Russia now grows and
produces 70% of its own food after the Yeltsin years when
massive imports were the norm. For this reason, most Russians
continue to support him. But, it isn?t a way to the West?s heart. A
economically weak Russia, dependent on imports from the US and
the EU, is their ideal. On top of which, foreign investment in blue
chip energy enterprises is on the decline.

In this there is a small but telling comparison from war torn
Afghanistan where Ishmael Khan, the governor of Herat province,
was chased from power on 11th September by the authorities in
Kabul. Khan had, according to the BBC, presided over the only
economically vibrant part of the country, building roads and
schools in Herat. ?Khan also won praise for his reconstruction
efforts - Herat is in much better shape than many other Afghan
cities and a lot more secure? writes the BBC?s correspondent.
See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmesfrom_our_own_corresponden
t/ 3659970.stm Also see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2535261.stmfor a
profile of Khan with further information on his success in Herat.
Every day brings more hostile press coverage of Putin from the
West which always chimes with the ?oppositionist? media in
Russia. It is odd that in such a ?dictatorship?, the opposition
dominates the media and that Western journalists only seem to
report events in Russia from their perspective. The opposition in
question consists of ?reformers? whose parties failed to make it
into the Duma in the 2003 parliamentary elections plus the
Communists, the only party with a reasonable degree of support
(though much reduced). The Communist Party received lavish
funding from Mikhail Khodorkovsky before the 2003 poll and had
four key Yukos personnel on its list _ a fact conveniently ignored in
the free Western media. See: Michael Hirsh and Frank Brown,
?Seeing Red: Spreading democracy is a Bush theme. Back in
Russia, guess who's defending democracy? The
communists? Newsweek International
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6039674/site/newsweek/27th September,
2004Perhaps Mr. Putin?s government will stay the course. But, if the
president loses power he might find himself following Slobodan
Milosevic to the Hague to face charges of ?genocide? in Chechnya.
No doubt, he is boxed in by many politicians in the apparatus who
have sold out to the West, but if he is deposed, killed or just
rendered supine, he will have to bear some responsibility for his
many, unnecessary acts of appeasement which have him
floundering on the chess board ? an odd place for a Russian to be.




_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism