Putin Is Scared of Girls! Is He Losing It?

Commentators predicted that the weakened Vladimir Putin would compromise with his political opposition as he began his third (actually fourth) term as Russia’s head of state. Our pundits do not understand Putin. For “once-KGB-always-KGB” Putin, compromise is an admission of weakness. Opposition is to be crushed, not bargained with. If  one hundred thousand demonstrators go on the streets, beat some of them arrest some, fine them a year’s salary, or jail them as “inciters of mass disorder.”  If anti-corruption bloggers attract too large an audience, pass anti-defamation laws, harass and interrogate then, and then stick them in jail to rot. If investigative reporters get too close, look the other way when they are murdered.

Putin’s persecution targets to date have been grown ups, such as  Oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, popular anti-corruption blogger Alexei Navalny, investigative reporter (deceased) Anna Politovskaya, Chess master Gary Kasparov, or ex-KGB (deceased) Alexander Litvinenko. Putin’s new enemies are young, naïve, and often female. Muscular, rock-ribbed, macho Putin is picking fights with girls! This doesn’t look good.

On February 21, Putin’s security forces arrested three members of the Pussy Riot feminist band, baklavas covering their faces, as they entreated the Virgin Mary to “get rid of Putin” in a “happening” performance in the Moscow’s Christ the Savior Cathedral. Two band members escaped underground, where they are available for interviews. The arrested Pussy Riot girls –Nadya, Katya, and Masha -- are in their early twenties. They have husbands. Two have young children. In April, Amnesty International declared them prisoners of conscience.

go to forbes.com

Sting, Flea, and Franz Ferdinand Against Putin: Who Will Win?

Rockers of the world are uniting against Putin’s arrest and incarceration of  the Pussy Riot punk rock group.

“Flea” promises the band members – Nadya, Katya and Masha – “his finest energy” and prayers for their release. He will “try to make as many people aware as I can.” Anthony Kiedes writes: “We love you, support you and are here to help you.” Alex Kapranos sends his support and complains that “Any leader of a country who claims to be a fan of the Beatles and Elton John and then imprisons contemporary musicians who are expressing their personal political views are dangerous hypocrites.” He seems to have gotten that right. Apparently Sting has lent his name to the protesters.

Pussy Riot’s crime was to play what they called a punk prayer, "Mother of God, Cast Putin Out!" inside Moscow's Christ the Saviour Cathedral in February. Nadya, Katya and Masha have been in jail since early March. Their trial is scheduled for the end of July and they face jail sentence of up to seven years. 

Putin has enlisted his ally Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Orthodox Church to condemn Pussy Riot as the devil. 

Syria, China, Russia, Reset, Magnitsky

Sunday, July 22:
The forces of Syrian dictator Basher Assad shell rebel-occupied neighborhoods of Damascus. Four young female members of a punk rock band begin their fifth month in a Moscow jail. Somewhere in China a local party boss meets with disaffected factory workers. In Washington,  the full house prepares to vote on visa restriction for Russian officials for human rights abuses. These disparate events are part of a larger mosaic, which begins in Syria.

Basher Assad, like his father before him, symbolizes unconstrained dictators prepared to do anything, no matter how odious, to stay in power. Unconstrained dictators use their secret police, militias, and armies to arrest, torture, and kill opponents. They raze whole towns. They kill innocent women and children to send a message. They are indifferent to world outrage. If Assad falls, it will not be for lack of brutality and atrocity. He may resort to chemical weapons as a last resort.

Constrained dictators, such as Mubarak, Pinochet, and the Shah, face limits imposed by moral qualms or the international community. Small protests swell, and momentum for regime change builds. Failure to use overwhelming force and efforts to compromise only embolden protesters, and eventually the constrained dictator resigns either to flee the country or to face local justice.

Two other constrained dictatorships, Russia and China, want to keep Assad in power. Both shudder at a fellow totalitarian regime falling to a disorganized opposition. They will abandon him (with great fanfare) only when it is clear that he has lost. China and Russia have their own disaffected minorities, disgruntled workers, and ideological opponents. Their one-party states lack legitimacy, and they know it. They consider themselves under constant threat, fearing the single spark that brings millions to the streets. They must snuff out any spark  — a lone barefoot lawyer or an 18 year old girl throwing a rock at security forces  –  that could conceivably ignite a Tahrir Square.

Russia and China’s one-party dictatorships face different threats. China’s Communist Party (CPC) must firefight grievance demonstrations. Putin, on the other hand, must confront direct challenges to his legitimacy.


go to forbes.com

Am I a Foreign Agent in Putin's Russia?

Russia's parliament recently adopted a requirement that all NGOs that receive funds from abroad register as a "foreign agent" (inostranny agent, as in the old days). International charities are ordering new stationery that identifies them as "foreign agents." I guess on my next visit to Russia, I might have to register as a foreign agent myself.

At least "foreign agent" does not carry the death penalty as it did under Stalin.

I guess Russia under Putin does not worry about the ham-fisted impression that such measures create. Oh well.

What If the Rich Really Gave Back as Obama Wants?

President Obama tells us that the rich should give back to society. He even knows many wealthy people who want to give back more. (I guess they can’t until their taxes are raised). We learn from him that the rich owe their success not to business acumen and risk taking but to public roads, schools, the courts, food stamps, disability payments, workplace regulation, and other government services. We even owe the first rumblings of the internet to DARPA, unfortunately the research arm of the military-industrial complex. (Or was it Al Gore?).  Obama feels it is only fair that the rich return what the government gave them. What business could survive without access by public road? Fair is fair, after all.

What would happen if we, like France’s socialist state, taxed away seventy five percent of earnings above one and a quarter million and  high-net-worth business executives with  $2.5 million in salary, dividends and rental property pay a marginal rate of 90.5 percent. At such rates, our rich would really be giving back to government what it is due, and perhaps more.  Fair is fair.

With so much “going back,” there is little reason to go forward. The “rich” should just cash in their chips, stop building their businesses or starting new ones, pay their high taxes, and live off their wealth, unless that is taxed away too. After all, the government can “invest” their money in Solyndras,  Volts, and entitlement programs. As Obama claims, government investment has higher returns than private investment.

If Steve Jobs had paid his fair share back to society after he made his first ten million, Apple today would today be a relatively small company worth less than a billion and employing a thousand or so. It would not be the world’s largest company in market cap, it would not employ 60,400 people worldwide, and we would not have the IPads, IPhones, Apps, and other innovative Jobs products, which improve the quality of lives and raise living standards. Apple shareholders would not hold shares worth a half trillion dollars.



go to forbes.com

Putin's Billion Dollar Palace on Black Sea: Unharmed by Nearby Flooding, Thank Goodness (Satellite image)