Russia
Yesterday in the FT (subscription required) was a very good piece on the path that is being taken by Russia. Among the people heavily quoted is Al Breach, Brunswick UBS' (a leading investment bank) economist and a big Russia bull. The other, respected, huge Russia bull eating his words is Eric Kraus in this piece The Summer of Our Discontent. You may struggle to hear the munching as the words are masticated - I assure you that they are there.
The long and short of the pieces is that the Silovki (people of power - i.e. the ex-KGB and Putin's friends) have taken control of the economy. Their underlying reasoning is correct What happened during Yeltsin's time was mayhem - it was fun, but it was mayhem. They want in a strong state and a lack of mayhem - oh and substantial bank accounts (their own.) However, as they have taken control of the reigns of power the country has moved from an imperfect quasi-liberal economy to a corrupt natural resource economy. And it has done so in less than a year. KGB school seemingly teaches control for controls sake and fails to go on to explain consequences.
Lets consider the right of the Silovki (ex-KGB) to run Russia. Since the death of Brezhnev in the mid-80's the head of the Central Committee of the Communist Party were two septuagenarian ex-heads of the KGB, followed rapidly by Gorbachev. The septuagenarians died pretty rapidly - they were pretty-much figure heads anyway. As an aside, Gorbachev is revered in the West for his reformist tendencies that lead to the end of the Cold War. Actually he did not have a clue what he was doing - it all happened without his input. Crucially though, it was the hard liners in the Politburo - the Silovki - who hastened the collapse through their complete lack of understanding of what was happening in country that they believed that they ruled and controlled. The actual event was the 1992 coup. My take on the legacy of the Soviet Union after the death of Stalin and the removal of Kruschev is that it was a state run by the KGB. Brezhnev was allowed to stay in power long after he was officially useless because he was a puppet of the guys who thought that they ran the country - the KGB. They replaced him with two of their own; only for them to die. Gorbachev was the chosen successor because he was deemed to be controllable (southern town hick without a power base.)
The Soviet Union had some fantastic achievements during its 70-odd years of existence. It also had some fairly miserable failures. You can directly attribute the failures to the KGB. In particular Brezhnev's era is best remembered for it's economic stagnation. Almost complete control, almost complete stagnation. This legacy of success is what qualifies them to run Russia.
Fourteen years later, the successors to that legacy of failure have emerged from the hole that they had to hide in after the 1992 coup. Since their re-emergence Russia has suffered the Yukos crisis, a manufactured banking crisis, the return of capital flight (hint - buy real estate in desirable and warm places. Russians are exporting their money from Russia again and they believe in real estate, and football clubs) a stalling of reform and a very badly bungled withdrawal of social security from pensioners and veterans whilst increasing them for bureaucrats. It would appear that during their 10+ years in the wilderness they failed to read any Adam Smith.
What next? There is no opposition, the Silovki can fix elections, so there is no one to provide an alternative view of the facts. I previously believed that Putin would step down at the end of his second term to preserve his place in history. His place in history will be as the President who undid all that was working in Russia - so not stepping down pretty much cements that position.
It's also increasingly clear that he is not in charge. I have previously written that he is primus inter pares of a group of like-minded people. It would appear that he no longer holds that position. German Gref, the reformist Minister of the Economy, has made a number of very critical remarks recently. Putin will be loathe to fire him. It removes the pretence that he is trying to undertake liberal reforms. Loyalty to the party line is pretty much Silovki 1.01 so I would expect that he will be taking a long holiday somewhere warm this winter.
So after that bout of happiness I am heading to my dacha to enjoy Russia's summer and swim in the Moscow river.
Update; even previously loyal members of the Duma are speaking out.
Yesterday in the FT (subscription required) was a very good piece on the path that is being taken by Russia. Among the people heavily quoted is Al Breach, Brunswick UBS' (a leading investment bank) economist and a big Russia bull. The other, respected, huge Russia bull eating his words is Eric Kraus in this piece The Summer of Our Discontent. You may struggle to hear the munching as the words are masticated - I assure you that they are there.
The long and short of the pieces is that the Silovki (people of power - i.e. the ex-KGB and Putin's friends) have taken control of the economy. Their underlying reasoning is correct What happened during Yeltsin's time was mayhem - it was fun, but it was mayhem. They want in a strong state and a lack of mayhem - oh and substantial bank accounts (their own.) However, as they have taken control of the reigns of power the country has moved from an imperfect quasi-liberal economy to a corrupt natural resource economy. And it has done so in less than a year. KGB school seemingly teaches control for controls sake and fails to go on to explain consequences.
Lets consider the right of the Silovki (ex-KGB) to run Russia. Since the death of Brezhnev in the mid-80's the head of the Central Committee of the Communist Party were two septuagenarian ex-heads of the KGB, followed rapidly by Gorbachev. The septuagenarians died pretty rapidly - they were pretty-much figure heads anyway. As an aside, Gorbachev is revered in the West for his reformist tendencies that lead to the end of the Cold War. Actually he did not have a clue what he was doing - it all happened without his input. Crucially though, it was the hard liners in the Politburo - the Silovki - who hastened the collapse through their complete lack of understanding of what was happening in country that they believed that they ruled and controlled. The actual event was the 1992 coup. My take on the legacy of the Soviet Union after the death of Stalin and the removal of Kruschev is that it was a state run by the KGB. Brezhnev was allowed to stay in power long after he was officially useless because he was a puppet of the guys who thought that they ran the country - the KGB. They replaced him with two of their own; only for them to die. Gorbachev was the chosen successor because he was deemed to be controllable (southern town hick without a power base.)
The Soviet Union had some fantastic achievements during its 70-odd years of existence. It also had some fairly miserable failures. You can directly attribute the failures to the KGB. In particular Brezhnev's era is best remembered for it's economic stagnation. Almost complete control, almost complete stagnation. This legacy of success is what qualifies them to run Russia.
Fourteen years later, the successors to that legacy of failure have emerged from the hole that they had to hide in after the 1992 coup. Since their re-emergence Russia has suffered the Yukos crisis, a manufactured banking crisis, the return of capital flight (hint - buy real estate in desirable and warm places. Russians are exporting their money from Russia again and they believe in real estate, and football clubs) a stalling of reform and a very badly bungled withdrawal of social security from pensioners and veterans whilst increasing them for bureaucrats. It would appear that during their 10+ years in the wilderness they failed to read any Adam Smith.
What next? There is no opposition, the Silovki can fix elections, so there is no one to provide an alternative view of the facts. I previously believed that Putin would step down at the end of his second term to preserve his place in history. His place in history will be as the President who undid all that was working in Russia - so not stepping down pretty much cements that position.
It's also increasingly clear that he is not in charge. I have previously written that he is primus inter pares of a group of like-minded people. It would appear that he no longer holds that position. German Gref, the reformist Minister of the Economy, has made a number of very critical remarks recently. Putin will be loathe to fire him. It removes the pretence that he is trying to undertake liberal reforms. Loyalty to the party line is pretty much Silovki 1.01 so I would expect that he will be taking a long holiday somewhere warm this winter.
So after that bout of happiness I am heading to my dacha to enjoy Russia's summer and swim in the Moscow river.
Update; even previously loyal members of the Duma are speaking out.
No comments:
Post a Comment