<ot> G'day all - dear Clark, thanks for the article. From a practical perspective, I tend to agree with the author [who is the author anyway?] However, I don't think the article accounts for every aspect of the Russian enigma. Tacitly, Russia could not have achieved its prowess in isolated instances in history. There was no tradition to bring about a Dostoevsky or a Tolstoy, but it did. In a less romantic vein, the downfall of the Soviet Union can very well be traced back to the lack of strong leaderships. Ok, before I go on, I don't mean to suggest the bringing back of the monsters like Stalin; but face it, the Soviet has not had a strong leadership since the early 80s. Gorbarev [sp?] might be a [somewhat] enlightened and charismatic leader, I would not consider him strong - in the Soviet sense.
That leads to a philosophical question. Is Russia ready for democracy? Again, while Russia has not had a tradition of democracy, can democracy rise up spontaneously without any forewarning like the many literary giants and scientific geniuses in the past? I wouldn't want to underestimate a culture, inspite of its environment [or maybe because of it <sg>,] that produces Solzhenitsyn and the like. However, short term, is it better - for the sake of stability - to support a [somewhat] enlightened despot? Can there be the second flowering of Peter the Great? Time will tell.
Back to IMF. While I have much disagreement with the IMF policies [at least of the past,] I do think it has to operate in a rather constrictive environments. I mean, IMF has to operate with some stingent parameters. Having said that, if I were a businessman, I would certainly agree with article that doing business with/in Russia is asking for troubles!
Enough for this romantic ideation.
best, Bosco |
