Enter Barack Obama and Dmitri Medvedev.  Two “thaw” presidents in their respective countries looking to reform their respective kingdoms in the wake of economic calamity.  The former called for a “new” America, the latter called for a “modernized” Russia.  Both were simply mimicking what their forefathers had strove to do, albeit in their own rhetorical ways.  On their respective domestic fronts the “new” America and the “modernized” Russia continue to look like the “old” America and the “backward” Russia.

While domestics alluded them, their tone vis-a-vis each other shifted.  The “new Cold War” rhetoric of 2008 quickly went from nostalgia to melancholy with the Obama Administration’s aim to “reset” relations with Russia.  The US was looking for some Russian acquiescence in dealing with Iran, and the Russians were looking for investment from the West.  The lovefest, while lacking much by way of anything concrete, nevertheless provided the kindle for a warmer atmosphere. The moves made Neo-Cold Warriors look as if they were barking at the moon. Obama and Medvedev consummated their matrimony with a couple of burgers and fries.

Love was in the air.  That was until 11 spies were uncovered on the Eastern seaboard.  Ten were busted, one flew the coop.  Their mission was to gather information that according to most could have been found in the press and on the internet.  Most of all, it seemed that the scandal would set the stage for Russia and the US to return to their natural place as adversaries.  The Cold War seemed to be on the verge of being back, baby.  Career Russophobes like Ed Lucas were off to see how often the word “chekist” could be tweeted.  The more zany clocked long hours trying to map the six degrees of separation between Anna Chapman’s Facebook friends as if they revealed some deeper conspiracy.  After a brief respite, the Cold War seemed back.  Bolsheviks were breeding once again, this time at our neighborhood barbecues.

Then Obama and Medvedev pissed on the parade.  The spy scandal was much ado about nothing, the duo assured us; especially since the US Justice Department seemed to not have enough to even charge the ten with espionage.  Even the often demonized spymaster Putin laughed off the affair as business as usual.

Nevertheless, though a Cold War redux was dashed, the two-week reality show proved once again that a cultural desire for it lingered.  For most people the desire wasn’t for the real Cold War taste with all its accompanying political fats and calories, but a more processed, nay, produced version to titillate our imaginations.  For the Cold War gives us something the dreaded Wahabbis never can:  to quote Kramer, “The high stakes game of world diplomacy and international intrigue.” Only other white people can do that, and the Russians are just “white” enough.

For a good week it was like old school James Bond all over again. Sexy spy chicks looking to infiltrate the rich and famous, deep cover agents posing a “normal” Americans, aliases, intrigue, disappearing ink, safe drops, secret cables, and spy vs. spy lingo.  The American media was overjoyed.  Between rerun reporting of the BP oil spill, another Lindsay Lohan meltdown, or the LeBronathon, the spy scandal was a breath of fresh air.

Even the British were eager to jump on the bandwagon. In a desperate move to appear relevant as a nation, the British struggled to worm its way into the performance.  MI5 jumped into the fray with its own investigation into the extent Anna Chapman went to honey trap British officials and elites. The security agency even dropped hints that there were at least 500 spies snooping on British soil.

The real exploiters of the spy scandal were the tabloids.  They immediately latched on to Chapman transforming her from a sweet Slavic cutie who lived on Facebook and hung out in Manhattan clubs to a genuine scarlet harlot.  Former lovers were coming out of the woodwork with tales of hot sex spurred on by pantyless stripteases and the sensual sounds of her Russian accent. All of this quickly culminated in the money shot: Chapman nudie pics.  The Russian redhead was now an international star.  Even Jay Leno and VP Joe Biden couldn’t help but mention the sexpot.  The reinstalled Tonight Show host, better known for bad sickly sweet vanilla jokes, asked the VP on a recent appearance: “Are our spies this hot?” “It was not my idea to send her back. I thought they’d take Rush Limbaugh,” Biden retorted. In all, the Culture Industry couldn’t have orchestrated a better PR campaign to generate interest in Angelina Jolie’s upcoming spy thriller, Salt. A sexy “deep cover” Russian spy plotting to kill the US President?  I’m there.  All of it showed that almost twenty years dead, the Cold War still packed some potential entertainment punch.

As for the rest of the spy crew, after a string of articles about how the enemy lives among us, interest in them quickly faded.  It turns out living a suburban life is pretty damn boring.  The only thing scandalous among the suburban spies was how messed up their kids were going to be now that they found out that mommy and daddy weren’t who they said they were.  To make matters worse, the US government sent the kids back to Mother Russia, which one presumes would only redouble the trauma.  How things have changed! If Russia was still Communist, the young-ins would have been paraded all over the media, igniting a movement not seen since Elian Gonzalez to keep them in the righteous US .  They would have been the figureheads for this century’s equivalent to the John Birch Society. But alas, in these post-Cold War times, you’re left to rot unless you’re wearing a burka, and even then you only get your fifteen minutes if an invasion of your country is in the works or a Western friendly “movement” is looking to overthrow your despotic regime.

In the end, the spy scandal had a rather twisted, metatextual but ultimately anticlimactic narrative.  It was Ian Fleming, Hustler‘s “Hot Letters,” and the Coneheads all rolled into one. The script didn’t work not because of the content–all the necessary subplots and cast were in place—but because of the drama’s principle producers–the US and Russia–just didn’t pull the trigger, at least not one that would generate a captivated audience over the long term.

The trigger that was pulled was not without a Cold War “echo,” however.  The best way for the US and Russia to defuse the situation, put the incident in the past, and move on was to revive a Cold War mainstay: the spy swap. There were over a dozen known spy swaps during the Cold War: actual spies, turncoats, dissidents, and missionaries were traded like baseball cards.  Back then espionage was a serious and respected business with a strong code of honor and pride. The practitioners of spy trades conducted themselves cordially with a high sense of decorum, mutual respect, and even affection for each other. Former spy swapper Jeremy Smith told NPR that the negotiations between him and Wolfgang Vogel, his East German counterpart, was like a “dance of two pens” as they tapped the names on their lists of desired agents to get around the bugs in Volker’s office. Smith and Vogel developed a warm relationship despite their adversary positions. They exchanged gifts and for one Christmas, Smith even brought the tryptophan deficient Vogel Butterball turkeys because the bird was scarce in East Germany.

These echoes quickly go faint in the our world of cost-cutting, productivity and profit.  There is just no time for the finesse of the past.  James Bond would have been downsized a long time ago.  If not, his expense account would have surely been drastically cut. Also, this week’s spy swap just had nothing substantive at stake.  The integrity of both our respective civilizations was not questioned simply because we are now all part of the capitalist brotherhood.  Our differences are mere quibbles compared the world historical duel of the past. The current spy scandal, therefore, was no substitute for the “real” ones of the past even if in our media laden present we are accustomed to mistaking the copy for the real.

Indeed, when it came down to it, the performance of the swap was more important than those being swapped.  Just take two of the most publicly recognized figures: Anna Chapman and Igor Sutyagin, the Russian nuclear scientist convicted of spying for the US in 2004.  The former turned out to be a very bad spy, while the latter was most likely not a spy at all. Nor did the exchange come amid any secrecy or setting reminiscent of the Cold War.  There was no equivalent to the Glienicke Bridge.  The world knew the swap was happening before it even happened.  Sutyagin’s people went straight to the press when it was announced that he would be exchanged.  Someone claiming to represent Chapman announced her impending release on Twitter.

It was no Cold War, though the public seemed happy to relish in the possibility.  But like most media sensations the buzz was a far cry for the real thing.  I even doubt that Americans and Russians really wanted the real thing.  They just like the idea of Cold War. It was exciting and it made our culture, our values, and our nations more important.  The world was split between us, our own personal chessboard on a global scale.  So what to make of this spy scandal on a cultural level?  Was there even a scandal at all?  I think the answer to these questions can be surmised from what will surely become one of its iconic phrases: “99 Fake Street.”

However, if you want the short version, I suggest watching RSA’s beautiful animation of it below.  It does a good job of adding some visual content to Harvey’s explanation of the crisis of capitalism.

h/t Gopal Balakrishnan

Some slogans are timeless

Are your backyard barbecues breeding Bolsheviks?  Deep cover agents posing as a two car garage, 2.3 kid, suburban, all-American family?  Mysterious sultry, salon dyed Slavic redheads friending you on Facebook?  Foreigners who dazzle with superb hydrangea pruning skills?  Watch out America, the Russians are coming, and one of them might look just like you.

There isn’t much to be said about the busted Russian spy ring at this point.  We all know the story of 11 secret agents planted by the “Moscow Center” to dig up information about nukes, policy, and backroom rumors in Washington.  We all have fawned, or read about the fawning over the PG-13 pics of “Anna Chapman,” the femme fatale of this real life Naked Gun movie (if the Chapman obsession wasn’t pathetic enough, now the Marines are now using her to warn sailors about “the use of good-looking women to lower a man’s defenses.” Oh, brother.)  We’ve also have seen how Moscow has laughed all of this off, and though it has questioned it’s timing, hasn’t retaliated in its usual way by expelling American diplomats.  We also know that this scandal will probably not effect any future burger lunches between Obama and Medvedev.  We pretty much know, unless FBI documents reveal otherwise, that Moscow’s “illegals” weren’t very good spies at all.  Finally, we also were informed that Christopher Metsos flew the coop in Cyprus and Juan Lazaro would sell out his kids before violating his “loyalty to the Service.”

Had enough?

Not by a long shot.

Besides all the manufactured drama of this spy ring, which James Meek over at LRB Blog rightly calls “a kind of performance art” fit for an HBO series, what has intrigued me about all of this is how the spies were “a typical, child-obsessed American family.”  Indeed, as Meek notes, the deep cover Russian spies are a real life analogy to the suburban mafiosi in the Sopranos, the drug lords cum legit businessmen in The Wire, or the faux-humanoid aliens of V.  They attended block parties and barbecues, showed up at PTA meetings and picnics, babysat the neighborhood kids, joined social networking sites, and had pretty ordinary jobs.

According to the FBI complaint to the court, becoming just like us was the Russian spies’ primary mission:

The FBI’s investigation has revealed that a network of illegals is now living and operating in the United States in the service of one primary, long-term goal: to become sufficiently “Americanized” such that they can gather information about the United States for Russia, and can successfully recruit sources who are in, or are able to infiltrate, United States policy-making circles.

It appears that they were good at the first part–becoming sufficiently Americanized–but bad at the second–infiltrating US policy-making circles.  Win some, lose some.

The Murphys doing as the Romans do

For me this dose of spymania says more about America than it does about the ineptness of Russian espionage.  What several of the “illegals” proved was how vapid and boring American suburban life really is.  All “illegals” like the Murphys had to do was pounce around in polo shirts, swig a couple of Diet Cokes, parent a couple of blond children, drive a Beemer, and don a pearly white smile fit for a real estate agent.  They were so good at it that they were able to do it without being married, though some spy to spy booty call was not out of the question.  For spy turned tabloid sensation Anna Chapman, posing as an ambitious twenty-something ready and able to hang out in the NY party scene was easy.  All she had to do was pour some five-and-dime red dye on her head and hit the clubs.  According to one former lover in Britain, Chapman knew how to work it.

Shocked Charlie Hutchinson, 31, said after seeing Anna Chapman’s picture in The Sun: “While we had sex she was talking and moaning in Russian. It lasted for 2½ hours and was so sexy. She was incredible.

The bespectacled law student told how the temptress – arrested by the FBI – was on a night out in Southampton when she jumped into his cab as he headed back to the university’s halls of residence.

He had earlier got talking to her as he boozed with chums at a student pub – called the White House.

Charlie, who is still studying in Southampton three years on, said: “Both of us were drunk. When we got into my room she began doing a striptease while I sat on the bed.

“She has a stunning figure – and had no underwear on. She really knew what she was doing.”

A week later they met up again for a romantic meal at an Italian restaurant – followed by more romps. He said: “She was wild in bed – a 14 out of ten. She knows positions I had never imagined.”

Hubba. Hubba.  But hey Chapman’s ability to go into deep cover was in her genes.  It has been revealed that her father was a KGB officer. A certain VVP perhaps?

After reading several stories about how ordinary these “spies” lives were (okay, maybe Chapman’s wasn’t too vanilla), I can imagine that all their training to capture “American realism” was to watch Hollywood movies.  The LA Times suggested as much with: “If their cover jobs were ordinary, their secret lives had a humdrum side that sometimes seems more like Woody Allen than John LeCarre.”

Or check out the itemized expense report from Donald Howard Heathfield and Tracey Lee Ann Foley to the “Moscow Center”:

Got from Ctr. 64500 dollars, income 13940, interest 76. Expenses: rent 8500, utilities 142, tel. 160, car lease 2180, insurance 432, gas 820, education 3600, payments in Fr. 1000, medical 139, lawyers fees 700, meals and gifts 1230, mailboxes, computer supplies 460, business (cover) 4900, trip to meeting 1125.

If you asked me, it sounds like Heathfield and Foley got themselves sucked into American middle class suburban hell.

Now that they’ve been busted, the spies can now join the pantheon of other “dark forces” who’ve managed to burrow into American suburban life.  Middle class whitey is already wrecked with anxiety over the death of the American dream, the collapse of suburban schooling, sexual predators, illegal immigrants, serial killers, and terrorists.  Now they have to worry about spies too?  And ones that look, act, and consume like them!  I sense someone reaching for their Xanax.

Living the Americanized Dream

Just because infiltrating into American life may be easy, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t dangerous.  Not dangerous for those unsuspecting suburbanites, but for the infiltrators themselves.  Barbecues and Beemers are tempting and the ‘burbs can be seductive.  “Americanization” is luring to many despite, or perhaps, because of its vapidness.  This is probably why the “Moscow Center” grew suspicious when the Murphy’s wanted to buy a house in Montclair, New Jersey.  The Murphy’s wrote to the Center after being rebuffed:

In order to preserve positive working relationship, we would not further contest your desire to own this house.  We are under an impression that C. views our ownership of the house as a deviation from the original purpose of our mission here.  We’d like to assure you that we do remember what it is.  From our perspective, purchase of the house was solely a natural progression of our prolonged stay here.  It was a convenient way to solve the housing issue, plus to ‘do as the Romans do’ in a society that values home ownership.

According to the LA Times, the Murphys had already embraced middle class entitlement.  One one them later “whined” that their handlers in Moscow “don’t understand what we go through over here.” They won’t let me own a house just like my neighbors! Whaaa!

The lesson in all this is that whitey needs to be more vigilant.  Apparently living in Obama Nation has caused them to slip. Tsk. Tsk. Wake up white people! We not just taking about your children’s purity anymore.  It’s not just the perverts and brown people you need to look out for.  The ones that look, act and do as you do are the most dangerous.  We’re talking about the protecting America from the evil Russians.  Remember Communism?  The Cold War?  Reds in the State Department?  Do you really want to be responsible for the Russianization of America?  I didn’t think so.  To borrow an often quoted line from the great philosopher Donald Rumsfield:

“There are known knowns.  There are things we know that we know.  There are known unknowns.  That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are unknown unknowns.  There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”

It is the “unknown unknowns” that we need to watch out for.  For they could be living unbeknownnst right next door to you.

Well, as I assumed the copies of Putin. The Results. 10 Years seized by St. Petersburg police will be returned.  Reports Ekho Moskvy:

Executive Director of United Civil Front Olga Kurnosova reported to Interfax, a representative of the police have contacted her and said that all the copies would be returned today.

They found no extremism in them whatsoever.

Nah, really?  I could have told them that without even reading the damn thing.  So basically this whole scandal has boiled down to some zealous police minion giving Nemstov and Milov two week’s worth of free advertising.  Good job boys.

Score: Team Solidarity 3 : Putin 0

"I'm too sexy for my track suit"

Will the real Ramzan Kadyrov please stand up?  Or at least provide an official passport?  As some may already know, the great pacifier of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov has his own blog.  Or is this his blog, “No, I’m Kadyrov“?

Whichever one is the real Ramzan, his move to share his thoughts inevitably signifies that blogging, and those by politicians and tyrants in particular, has indeed jumped the shark.  Who’s next Kim Jong-il?  (You know if the Dear Leader had a blog you would read it.  I know I would.)

And what did Mr. Kadyrov have to say in his first post?

Here we will meet with you on my blog. There are a great number of blogs that claim to be me. Rest assured, not a single one of them, with exception of the official site of the President of the Chechen Republic, are associated with me. I would really like for you and I to become friends, talk often, and share opinions about current events.  I am a sociable, extremely candid man.  I hope you share these qualities.  I wish you all the best!  Your Ramzan.

"Wanna date?"

Not the most lyrical of texts.  In fact, it sounds like ol’Ramzan is looking for a date.  Especially if you consider the picture occupying the passage.  He looks all suave in his track suit.  Or check out the one for his avatar where he’s smiling seductively as he rests his chin on his wrist. Sexy.

If you think being Ramzan is hard, try being Ramzan the blogger.  Already three days old, and the blog is not without controversy.  First, there were the reports that the blog’s comments section was closed, casting doubt as to whether Kadyrov was the “sociable, extremely candid” guy he claimed. But these turned out to be false.  But be careful, Ramzan is making a list of commentors’ IP addresses.

Then just when Kadyrov thought he had a clear path to becoming a star of the blogsphere, his second post, “My city, Grozny” was accused of plagiarism,  According to the Moscow News,

But that hasn’t stopped the virtual sniggers as his second post, headlined “My city, Grozny”, flickered briefly into life then faded into the void amid allegations of plagiarism.

Kadyrov described getting into his car after the noon prayers and taking a short road trip around Grozny, praising the hard-working residents who are making his city the most beautiful in the region.

All good, touching stuff – but rather familiar to followers of Adam Delimkhanov’s blog, where the state Duma deputy describes an early-afternoon motor jaunt around Moscow and talking about the hard-working Chechen immigrants who are making his city the most beautiful in the region.

Kadyrov’s own site no longer carries his adapted text, though Yandex still carries a cached copy of the text, which can be compared with Delimkhanov’s efforts.

No need to hunt through Yandex.  Thanks to my trusty Feeddemon, I have a copy of the post from Kadyrov’s RSS feed.  Ramzan’s text (plagarized passages in bold):

В последнее время много пишут о Грозном. Авторы подчеркивают, что он стал одним из красивых городов. Три года назад мы заявили, что возродим город. И назвали сроки. Многие не верили. Думали, что устанем, надеялись, что нам надоест работать днем и ночью. Народ Чеченской Республики доказал, что любит свой край, свою столицу. Сегодня после полуденной молитвы я за рулем «Приоры» проехал по улицам Сунженская, Тбилисская, Назарбаева, Гурина, Садовой. Здесь трудятся тысячи жителей Чечни. За последние шесть дней Грозный, благодаря их труду, просто преобразился. И я со всей ответственностью утверждаю, что этот город будет не одним из красивых в регионе, а самым красивым, уютным и безопасным.

Recently, many people have written about Grozny.  The authors emphasize how it became one of the most beautiful cities.  Three years ago we declared that we will revitalize the city.  And we designated a date.  Many didn’t believe us.  They thought that we would tire, hoping that we wouldn’t bother working day and night.  The people of the Chechen Republic have proved that they love their region and their capital.  Today after prayers I drove down the streets of Sunzhensk, Tbilisi, Nazarbarv, Gurin, and Sadovoi in my Priord.  Here thousands of citizens of Chechnya work.  For the last six days, Grozny  has undergone a sea change thanks to their labor.  And I proclaim with all responsibility that this city will be one of the pleasant in the region and the most beautiful, comfortable, and safe.

Now compare to Delimkhanov’s post, “Moscow, my city”:

Сегодня после полуденной молитвы я за рулем «Калины» проехал по улицам Москвы: Арбату, Новому Арбату, Красной площади, Садовой. Здесь трудятся тысячи жителей Чечни. За последние шесть дней Москва, благодаря их труду, просто преобразилась. И я со всей ответственностью утверждаю, что этот город будет не одним из красивых в регионе, а самым красивым, уютным и безопасным.

Today after prayers I drove down the streets of Moscow Arbat, New Arbat, Red Square, and Sadovoi in my Kalin.  Here thousands of citizens of Chechnya work.  For the last six days, Moscow,  has undergone a sea change thanks to their labor.  And I proclaim with all responsibility that this city will be one of the pleasant in the region and the most beautiful, comfortable, and safe.

Oh, and let us not forget that, as the Moscow News also notes, Kadyrov doesn’t own a car.

The car story aroused further suspicion among regular followers of Kadyrov. The Chechen president officially has no vehicle, and didn’t declare ownership of one among his accounts, gzt.ru reported.

Nice work Ramzan, or, I should say the people who write his blog for him.

Martin and Lewis or Simon and Garfunkel?

Solidarity may be band of “scrubby little opposition organizations [that] have no future,” but if things keep going the way their going, Boris Nemtsov will be wining and dining on American think tank honorariums, hobnobbing with US politicos, and testifying in front of Congress for years to come.  Wait, haven’t they done a bit of this already?

Well, let’s just say that Nemtsov’s future is looking a bit brighter thanks to his efforts to paint himself as a repressed dissident.  On Tuesday, Nemtsov reported that the cops seized another 100,000 copies of Putin. The Result. Ten Years. in Smolensk.  I’ve already noted how the cops seized 100,000 copies of the Nemtsov and Milov report last week in St. Petersburg.  The act was clearly a way to prevent activists from distributing the screed to potential investors at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.  A few activists from United Civil Front did worm their way into the forum, but were promptly arrested.

In inquiring about the report, the Smolensk authorities explained that they were just doing their St. Petersburg colleagues a solid, but denied taking any copies.  “After the detention of copies in St. Petersburg, our Petersburg colleagues asked for us to check whether the publisher’s seal was from Smolensk though the report’s publisher is from Moscow.  We asked the head of the printing press [about this],” said Nikolai Turbovets, First Lieutenant of the Smolensk police.  But apparently, unlike their Petersburg counterparts, the Smolensk authorities just did an inquiry.  “No copies were confiscated and no one was arrested,” an employee of the Smolensk press told Kommersant.  However, the source thinks that this was only the beginning.  “I think that the copies will be seized after the hoopla dies down.  We will be connected with the publisher in the next few days.”  The unnamed employee went on to add: “There is a general feeling that now without these copies Boris Nemtsov will receive some excellent PR.”

Given this, it is no surprise that Nemtsov has exaggerated with how things went down.  Nemtsov insists that the copies were indeed taken and not returned, while Olga Shorina, Solidarity’s press secretary, says that the copies are at the Smolensk printing press’ offices but they have been “sealed” by the cops thereby preventing their distribution.

Confiscated or not confiscated.  Sealed or unsealed.  The fact is that the authorities are playing right into Nemtsov’s hands by giving him far more PR than his little “report” deserves.  And he’s lapping it all up as people bum-rush him for his autograph.  Another Russian oppositionist with the rock star looks without the rock star talent.  Oh well, it’s not like talent matters anyway.

The thing I can never wrap my head around is why the police care about people like Nemtsov.  Are they really that paranoid?  Do they think that they are scoring brownie points with their superiors?  Or are they just flat out stupid?  Now granted, there is no contradiction between any of these.  If anything is to be learned is that paranoia, sycophancy, and stupidity go hand in hand.

True, after a few weeks or so all of this will die down even if the cops declare Nemstov’s “report” to be extremist.  Just how soon, though, will depend on Nemtsov himself.  Being the slick willy that he is, I’m sure he’ll have no problem finding the gumption to parlay this into at least a few American taxpayer funded first class transatlantic flights, black tie dinners, photo-ops, and speeches detailing the gruesomeness of the Putin regime.  If the FSB really puts the screws to him, maybe he can even get a movie option or two so he could tell his “story” in celluloid fashion.  George Clooney as Nemtsov?  I could see it.  And if all goes really well, Borya will be able to dethrone Khodorkovsky as the reincarnation of Sakharov.  We all know how Americans like “freedom fighters.”  After all, the Russian authorities have provided him a trough full of greasy, scandal laden vittles.  All Nemtsov has to do is bury his snout in it and start slurping.

With all this said, I can’t help wondering if the real loser in all this is Nemtsov’s co-author, Vladimir Milov.  He basically shot himself in the foot by announcing his departure from Solidarity a day after the cops seized his report.  I mean, didn’t Russian Dissident School teach him that you don’t take a principled stand on anything unless it boosts your public profile?  Sure Solidarity may be filled with egomaniacs, but said egomaniacs command the flashbulbs of Western correspondents.  Now poor Milov doesn’t have a pot to piss in, let alone a platform from which to piss in it.

Two questions have been occupying most commentators:  Why the violence, or, specifically why didn’t we see it coming? and What are the international ramifications, particularly for the US and Russia?  I’m personally less interested in the second question, and for the most part discussion on this has ranged from the ludicrous (for how ludicrous see Michael Hancock’s undressing on Registan), the paranoiac and uninformed, the all too typical, to the regurgitated.  Basically, I’ll leave it to the foreign policy wоnks to untangle this mess.  I just hope to hear something new as they do.

The “why” question, however, is the thing that seems to be occupying the minds of most Central Asia watchers.  This is an observation based on discussions on Registan and articles on Eurasianet.org.  The debates on Registan are informed, measured, fresh and invaluable.  Posts by Sarah Kendzior, Michael Hancock, and Christian Bleuer are must reads.

As I noted in my last post on Kyrgyzstan, there are a lot of people skeptical of the ethnic roots of the violence.  It’s not that they are saying that ethnicity doesn’t matter.  It does.  Rather, skeptics of the ethnic conflict thesis are questioning the tendency to reduce everything to ethnicity.  As always, media commentary tends to engage in this reductionism thereby making ethnic conflict, and therefore the idea of ethnicity or nationality itself, into something that is primordial and eternal.  One interesting thing I’ve noticed in some articles is to locate the origin of the conflict in how Stalin drew the borders of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan as a means to realize some kind of “divide and conquer” strategy.  For example, Peter Zeihan writes, “Kyrgyzstan is an artificial construct created by none other than Stalin, who rearranged internal Soviet borders in the region to maximize the chances of dislocation, dispute and disruption among the indigenous populations in case the Soviet provinces ever gained independence.”  Or, Edward Stourton, “The way Stalin designed the region ensured that it would regularly be shaken by inter-ethnic violence.”  And the Economist, “In 1924 Stalin divided the region into different Soviet republics. The borders were drawn up rather arbitrarily without following strict ethnic lines or even the guidelines of geography.”  These statements misunderstand the history of ethnicity as a concept of identity in this region.  True, the borders were drawn by Stalin, as Commissar of Nationalities, but, as Francine Hirsch contends, these borders were to purposely create these nations since the Bolsheviks believed in their evolutionary teleology that becoming a nation was necessary in order for “backward people” to overcome nationality.*  Was it a colonial strategy?  Most certainly since what Hirsch calls “state-sponsored evolutionism” was the Bolsheviks’ own version of White Man’s Burden.  Ironically, in their efforts to destroy nationality and nationalism, the Bolsheviks were their midwives.  So if there is anything to blame Stalin for it was playing a pivotal role in creating the geographical foundation for “Kyrgyz” and “Uzbeks” were none “existed” in the first place.

The roots of the conflict, therefore, are quite recent, and though there were tensions between the two groups in the Soviet period, they have exacerbated since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  In particular, thanks to the widening gap between rich and poor.  Inevitably, class and ethnicity became intertwined as the Kyrgyz majority saw themselves losing out to the Uzbek minority.  The conflict therefore has local and international economic motors.  One of the more interesting analyses on this point is Balihar Sanghera’s “Why are Kyrgyzstan’s slum dwellers so angry?” which puts the inter-ethnic violence in a global economic frame.  I found this passage very revealing:

The International Monetary Fund, World Bank and World Trade Organisation have imposed upon Kyrgyzstan and many other developing countries a package of neo-liberal economic policies. Powerless to resist, governments have had to sign up to these structural adjustment programmes in return for international loans, foreign direct investment and other financial support. Since independence in 1991, Kyrgyzstan has undergone an extensive programme of liberal marketisation and privatisation: privatisation of land and property, a break-up of kolkhozes, reductions in subsidies and import tariffs, liberalisation of commodity prices, cuts in state expenditure, relaxation of foreign ownership rules in key sectors (such as gold mines), opening up of home markets to imports, floating the exchange rate and so on. The shock therapy approach to the ‘transition’ to a market economy has had negative consequences on the Kyrgyzstani agricultural sector, and indirectly on urban slums and land invasions.

Given the small allocation of land that each family received in the 1990s in South Kyrgyzstan, most farmers struggle to eke a living, and are unable to absorb family labour, resulting in rural unemployment and underemployment. In addition, marginal and small farmers lack funds to buy adequate fertilisers, to invest into a proper irrigation system, to pay for effective livestock immunisation, or to capitalise their farms for future growth. Many farmers survive by pooling their resources, reviving some aspects of the Soviet kolkhozes. Some have abandoned farming, either by leasing their land rights to larger farmers, who possess the capital to undertake successful commercial farming, or by giving back their tenancy rights to ayil okomotu (local state administration), who then lease them to rich farmers. As a result, the rural society has become pauperised.

How many times have we seen this around the world?

Boris Petric also places the violence in the context of privatization (along with political clan and mafia struggles and the drug trade thrown in the mix):

As the free market ideology gained ground internationally, Kyrgyzstan launched massive privatization initiatives and opened its borders. This led to the collapse of industry and the agricultural sector, as well as causing increased social inequality. With new opportunities in cross-border trading, a new upper class formed, while most of the population lived below the poverty threshold. Structural adjustment policies, which Akayev followed to the letter, encouraged the emergence of new familial economic powers. In the south of the country, and particularly in Osh, many Kyrgyz often associated these economic powers with urban Uzbeks.

After the 2005 Tulip Revolution, Kurmanbek Bakiyev quickly put an end to the advantages gained by some Uzbeks in Osh during the privatization period. These politico-economic entrepreneurs, of which Deputy Batyrov is a good example, were gradually marginalized. The Bakiyev brothers then set about gaining control of the economy, and encouraged other “Uzbeks” to monopolize major economic resources from the Akayev administration’s former protégés. Control of the economy passed into the hands of Bakiyev’s allies. These new economic leaders were soon required to set up various dummy companies benefiting the presidential entourage.

Events took another turn when Roza Otunbayeva came to power in April 2010. President Bakiyev’s allies in the Osh region were quickly dispossessed of the advantages they had enjoyed. The situation deteriorated rapidly and tensions arose between different groups which aspired to control economic activities. An Uzbek businessman, Aibek Mirsidikov, was murdered in mysterious circumstances. According to rumor, Mirsidikov was involved in Mafia and other criminal activities. He was closely linked to the Bakiyev family, and it was even said that the President’s brother put him in charge of the lucrative Afghan drug trade and reorganizing economic relations in Osh. The fall of President Bakiyev therefore led to a new politico-economic shakeup in the region. The current conflict was probably triggered by the rise to power of some politico-Mafia groups, and the fall of others. The groups that had flourished under the previous government were not willing to accept defeat. Adopting extremely violent tactics, they began settling scores, aided and abetted by the Bakiyev brothers. The extent of these retaliations meant the conflict finally took an interethnic turn.

In her “The ethnicisation of violence in Southern Kyrgyzstan,” Madeleine Reeves notes some of the ways these social conflicts have become ethnicized in the Ferghana Valley:

In recent weeks, political tensions, economic anxieties, criminal violence, the freezing of legal process, and what seems to be a quite concerted attempt at ethnic mobilisation and provocation by supporters of ousted former-president Bakiev mean that in southern Kyrgyzstan, mothers, brothers, school-friends, colleagues, neighbours and drinking partners have been “pinned to the wall” of nationhood, reduced to the single category, “Kyrgyz” or “Uzbek” in this historically most complex and socially variegated of regions.

Writing to me a few weeks ago, a tri-lingual (Kyrgyz, Uzbek and Russian-speaking), “Kyrgyz”-identifying friend, with Uzbek and Uighur heritage on his mother’s side, described how his “Uzbek”-identifying wife was increasingly conscious of the appearance of ethnic slurs in the playground when she took her (ethnically “mixed”) children out to play.   An Uzbek-identifying friend from Jalalabat noted in the same period a growing sense of disillusion amongst Jalalabat Uzbeks, as ethnically-marked political-criminal groupings sought to take advantage of the change of leadership in the wake of Bakiev’s ouster to seize control of businesses traditionally dominated by Uzbek elites in the city.  For both of these acquaintances, ethnicity was a constitutive part of their identity, just as was their age, their gender, their education, and their identification with a cosmopolitan, urban Ferghana culture.  Each, in different ways, has written of the horror of being reduced in recent days to that single dimension, “Kyrgyz” or “Uzbek”.  Talking of this as an “ethnic conflict” misses that essentially processual dimension:  it is essentialising; it is depoliticising and it acts as an analytical “stop”.  It takes ethnicity as being analytically causal, rather than asking about the complex, messy, deeply political dynamics through which, in a moment of state crisis, conflict has come to be ethnicised.

. . . What we have been witnessing in Osh and Jalalabat over the last few days is a disturbing and distressing spiral of violence.  Much of this has been articulated in ethnic terms: evident in targeted attacks on property, homes and in the brutal wounding of those perceived as ethnically “other” whether they be Kyrgyz or Uzbek.

Less reported are the multiple instances where ethnicity has been irrelevant to action: when property has been looted because “they” represent wealth and opportunity that is inaccessible to “us”; when Kyrgyz have sheltered Uzbeks and vice versa; when neighbours have sought to defend their street or their mosque from attack not because they are of the same ethnicity, but because they live in the same neighbourhood and want to have the chance of continuing to do so.

Reeves goes on to add that ethnicity in this case is more like poisonious silly-puddy with its ability to be molded and graft onto a multitude of existing social processes.

“Inter-ethnic conflict” as an explanatory frame is problematic, then, not because ethnicity doesn’t matter, but because the “ethnic group” by itself doesn’t do any meaningful explanatory work (unless, of course, we assume that some ethnic groups are “naturally” pre-disposed to violence).  Ethnicity in Osh is socially constituted, as well as socially and spatially organised.  It is produced and reproduced in a host of domestic, educational, social and political institutions, from schools to television broadcasts, from religious celebrations to the organisation of domestic and neighbourhood space.  Critically, moreover, it is reproduced in a host of business networks, patronage relations, and crimino-political groupings, the activity and violence of which has increased dramatically in the weeks since former president Bakiev was ousted in an uprising on April 7th.

Perhaps it is this hornet’s nest which has made Russia hesitant to dive in military first despite the pleads of the Kyrgyz interim government.  Indeed, I agree with the view that the US and Russia just hope the crisis goes away.  But crises like this rarely do.  Unfortunately for the Kyrgyz, the situation remains dire and continued destabilization may generate the very things that Russia and the US fear the most: regional civil war, increased drug trafficking, and Islamism.

The big test is coming in the next week.  The continued “state of emergency” threatens to put the June 27 referendum on a new constitution on hold.  The interim government hopes that turning Kyrgyzstan into a parliamentary republic will bring political stability.  However, if RFE/RL correspondent Bruce Pannier is right it could only exacerbate ethnic tensions.  According to him:

“Everyone that I’ve talked to in these Uzbek neighborhoods points out that they don’t have any representation in the government at all — the soldiers are Kyrgyz, all the police are Kyrgyz.  If they hold the referendum and then there is something the Uzbeks don’t like, they are going to say, ‘This isn’t our constitution. This is a Kyrgyz constitution.”

*Francine Hirsch, “Toward an Empire of Nations: Border-Making and the Formation of Soviet National Identities,” Russian Review, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), 202-203.

The dynamic duo is back with a new Putin obsessed treatise, elegantly entitled Putin. The Results. Ten Years.  So much for creativity.  It is sure to get more media attention than it deserves.  I have yet to read it, and probably won’t.  I’m sure my eXile piece applies just as well to this one.  According to reports in the Russian media, the text evaluates Putin’s decade long run and the tandem’s two year performance.  Vedomosti writes that Nemtsov characterized the text this way on his blog:

In Russian society there are persistent myths imposed by official propaganda.  There are many: the myth that Putin pacified the Caucuses and defeated terrorism, the myth about the increased birth and decreased mortality rates, the myth that he defeated the oligarchs and successfully solved the social problems of society.  In our report all of these false claims are debunked with figures and facts from available sources.

Boring.  Somehow I can’t help thinking that I’ve heard this song before.  But, hey, I’ll let you be the judge.  A million copies have been printed up and shipped off to Moscow and Petersburg.

Well, make that 900,000 copies.  The Russian news is reporting that police seized a shipment of 100,000 copies in a traffic stop in St. Petersburg, for, get this “irregularities in the documentation for cargo.”  Reports Gazeta, citing the police:

A truck with the MAN make with Smolensk plates was stopped by traffic police at 9:30 am on Shpalernaya Street (a Yabloko branch office is located there). The cop issued a ticket for the violation of the article 16.12 of the Administrative Code (the violation of traffic signals or road markings): Heavy vehicles are prohibited from entering the center of St. Petersburg without the proper permits,” the police department stated.  “When the inspector went to check the load, it became clear that the invoice on the copies stated a Smolensk printing press, while the publishers imprint on the actual books was a the Moscow press. The goods will be temporarily detained and checked.

Not sure why the discrepancy between the invoice and the copies matters.  Nevertheless, it was enough for the cops to pinch it.  I can see tomorrow’s headlines: “Putin Impounds Critics.”  Yep, because no one gets pulled over for traffic violations in Russia. Or harassed for not have the million stamps and forms needed to do anything.  And, well, opportunists always have their shit together because they are, like, honest and principled just like us in America.  One would think they would have their papers in order considering the big target Russian liberals have on their back.  They do, after all, live in Russia.  Despite how silly all of this sounds, we should score one for Nemstov and Milov. The cops just gave them the best advertising in town: claims of repression.

Update

It’s funny how things become clearer in just a few hours.  Now Gazeta.ru is reporting that the cops have finished their check of the 100,000 copies of Putin. The Results. Ten Years and dutifully shipped them off to the MVD’s Center “E” for inspection.  For those who don’t know, Center “E” is the outfit devoted to combating “extremism.”  Nemtsov and Milov may be a lot of things, but being extremists is definitely not one of them.

This means that my above cynicism is now dashed, making me actually think that something is indeed rotten in St. Petersburg.  I hate it when the Russian authorities’ sheer idiocy and paranoia make me sympathize with the liberals.  I just hate it.

And if you need more proof that this seizure is convenient, not to mention downright suspicious, check this out: It comes a mere day before the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.  Over the next few days, Medvedev is set to hobnob with businessmen from around the world to ensure them that Russia is worth their bucks.  Apparently the chance that one of Nemtsov and Milov’s pamphlets falls into an unsuspecting businessman’s hands and they learn there’s mass corruption (shock!) in Russia is just too risky.  As Dr. Smith used to say in Lost in Space, “Oh the pain. The pain.”

This whole incident also proves that Nemtsov can be right every once in a while.  “In his opinion,” says Gazeta, “now the report will be read by more than a million people.”  All too true. Score: Team Solidarity 2 : 0 Putin.

From Ferghana.ru.

h/t Lyndon.