David Satter about Russia

The Character of Russia

For centuries, the Russian traveler, crossing the border, felt an inexplicable lightness, as if an unseen burden had been lifted from his shoulders. In 1839, the Marquis de Custine recorded the comments of a German innkeeper in Travemunde who remarked that when Russians arrived on their way to Europe, they had a "gay, free, happy air." When they returned, the same people had "long, gloomy tormented faces." Their conversation was brief, "their speech abrupt." The innkeeper concluded that a country that "one leaves with so much joy and returns to with such regret" must be a "bad country."

The reason for the Russian travelers' relief on reaching the West was that, in Russia, the individual is expendable. On crossing the border, he acquires rights, security and the protection of law. Napoleon said that in Europe, there were really only two countries, Russia and everyone else. In the West, the individual is an end in himself. In Russia, he is the means to an end. He can be used for any purpose, his life has little value and his individual personality is not taken seriously.

This condition exists because in Russia, the state is sacred. This mentality is difficult for an outsider to comprehend so the intentions of the Russian regime are constantly misunderstood. When they are deciphered, they seem too bizarre to be real, which prevents the outsider from grasping their seriousness. In Russia, the regime is less a government than a religious crusade crystallized in the institutions of a state. Its preferred field of action is the whole world. The regime does not guarantee the welfare of its citizens because it does not aspire to. It exists for a "higher" purpose and does not recognize moral limits on the pursuit of its goals.

The tsars explained the Russian system on the basis of the "Russian Idea," which was a defense against the notion that Russia differed from the West only its backwardness. According to this idea, Russia's supposedly spiritual culture was actually superior to the materialism of the West. The Russian state was holy and it was the state's mission to bring godliness in the form of (the Russian) religion to the rest of humanity.

The Russian Idea, though developed to defend Tsarism, came to characterize Russian thought generally. The supporters of the regime saw the state's mission in terms of religion, the opponents in terms of socialism but both believed that it was the role of the Russian state to save the world on the basis of a totalitarian ideology that combined "philosophy with life" and "theory with practice."

The durability of this state mentality was such that when the Tsarist autocracy fell, the communist regime which succeeded it not only incorporated all of its repressive features but radically intensified them. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the notion of the priority of state goals guided the reform process whose lawlessness led to the complete criminalization of the country. When Russia began to experience economic growth and relative prosperity under Putin, the result was not the development of democracy but, again, the glorification of the state and a new policy of repression.

In a speech given in April, 2008, Putin expressed his philosophy in terms that have been traditional in Russia for hundreds of years. He said that "maintaining the governance of a vast territory, preserving a unique commonwealth of peoples while occupying a major place in world affairs calls… for enormous sacrifices and privations on the part of our people." This, he said, has been "the story of Russia's thousand year history." The Russian people "do not have the right to forget this." In other words, Russians should support the regime's ambitions, at the cost of "enormous sacrifices and privations" until the end of time.

In the interest of preserving Russia's status as a great power, millions of people were put to death deliberately during the communist era but there is no desire in Russia to commemorate their fate. The official view is that there were dark chapters in the country's history and also glorious deeds and it does not pay to dwell on the dark chapters. Russia was great in the past and will be great in the future. As for the need to change the state mentality that justified the murder of millions in order to guarantee Russia's supposed "greatness," the question is given little thought.

Recent weeks have seen signs of change in Russia. After twenty years of post-Soviet corruption and abuse, Russians have begun to protest against the ruling regime. They have, in effect, given themselves a second chance to gain the democracy they sought but did not achieve after the fall of the Soviet Union. The attempt will lead nowhere, however, without a change in the low value attributed to the individual in Russia, an attitude that, to a distressing degree, the people share with the regime. But for such a change to take place, Russia must discard its pretensions and honor its dead. Such a break with the past will not be easy. But it is within the capacity of a nation that tried to create heaven on earth and it is the only path to a better future.

David Satter, a Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute and a visting scholar at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), is the author of It Was a Long Time Ago, and It Never Happened Anyway: Russia and the Communist Past (Yale). Age of Delirium, a documentary film about the fall of the Soviet Union based on his book of the same name, was recently released.

• Email David Satter

Media inquiry must back ban on sexualised images in media, UK women's groups say

When Lord Justice Leveson launched his inquiry into the ethics of the press, he may not have expected to be confronted with an enlarged photograph of near-naked bottoms. Or to be presented with evidence deemed so explicit it was censored before being circulated to other witnesses.
But a coalition of women's groups argued that such highly sexualised images – presented as part of their submission to the inquiry – were ubiquitous in the UK media, and called on the judge to tackle "relentless" sexism in some areas of the press.
Four groups – Eaves, End Violence Against Women, Object and Equality Now – called on Leveson to back a ban on sexualised images in newspapers, arguing they would not be broadcast on television before the 9pm watershed.
The groups also accused some media outlets of perpetuating myths about rape, which they argued could prevent victims reporting the crime, and called for a tougher regulatory body. "The media creates, reflects and enforces attitudes in society," said Marai Larasi from End Violence Against Women, a coalition of 40 women's organisations. "Those who work in the media should be conscious of this and should actively seek not to reproduce attitudes which condone violence against women or girls."
Papers including the Sun, Daily Star and Sunday Sport "persistently" objectified women, portraying them "as a sum of sexualised body parts", said Anna van Heeswijk, from Object, a lobby group against the objectification of women. "We have to ask ourselves what kind of story does it tell young people when men in newspapers wear suits, or sports gear, are shown as active participants, and women are sexualised objects who are essentially naked or nearly naked," she said.
The groups are want legislation banning pictures of naked or semi-naked women in newspapers, arguing the images would not be allowed in the workplace because of equality legislation, and should not be sold in an "unrestrained" manner at "children's eye-level". Leveson said his powers were limited and such a change would require "rock-solid legislation".
Van Heeswijk highlighted the inquiry's decision to censor some of the images in Object's submission. "They were censored for adults within this inquiry, when in fact they are freely available in mainstream newspapers, which are not age-restricted," she said. She also accused tabloids carrying photographs of semi-naked women of "creating a culture of fear which silences … anybody speaking out against the portrayal of women as sex objects". She cited former MP Clare Short, who was branded a "fat" and "jealous" "killjoy" by the Sun when she spoke out against Page 3.
The reporting of violence against women too often focused on the actions of the victim, rather than the attacker, and perpetuated myths about what constituted a "real rape", said Heather Harvey of Eaves. Women often blamed themselves if they had been drinking, or wearing certain clothes, or if they knew their attacker, she added. "What they have read in the papers [is] in some way responsible for that."
Men were also too often portrayed as "monsters", she said. "[T]hese cases get treated as a one-off […] there's nothing you could do to prevent it. Whereas the position we're coming from, [is] it's not inevitable, it's a cause and a consequence of inequality."..
Asked by Leveson what the difference was between expressly pornographic publications such as Penthouse and the tabloids in question, Van Heeswijk said: "I think you'll find that there isn't a marked difference between the content […] so the difference is how they are regulated."
The groups also called on Leveson to recommend the replacement of the Press Complaints Commission with an independent body "with teeth" that women and women's groups could complain to directly. The reporting of violence against women and girls needs to be more balanced and more context needs to be provided about its frequency, they added. Journalists should also receive training on the "myths and realities" about violence against women and girls, and there should be a code of practice for the way "case studies" are dealt with, the groups said.
Jacqui Hunt, of Equality Now, said the groups did not want to curtail press freedom but wanted the media to behave more responsibly. "The way the media covers women at the moment […] curtails and limits women's freedom of expression and ability to engage in that public debate," she said.

Source: Alexandra Topping, guardian.co.uk, 25 January 2012

shame to the FT reputation

October 18, 2011 12:18 am

Russia: decline and fall

By Charles Clover
+{my comments}

When trying to explain Russia’s declining population, Yuri Krupnov gives the example of the birth of his two children.

The first time his wife gave birth, in 1988, there was almost no room in the crowded maternity ward, and his wife was kept instead on a cot in the hallway. The second time, four years later, “she had the ward almost to herself. There was no one there,” says the chairman of the Moscow-based Institute for Demography, Migration and Regional Development.

The end of communism in Russia and the economic chaos that engulfed the country in the 1990s, led to a sharp slide in birth rates and a surge in death rates; a “real catastrophe” in the words of Vladimir Putin, Russia’s former president and now its prime minister. Indeed, Putin devoted the bulk of his 2006 yearly address to both houses of parliament to the theme of the decline of Russia’s population.

Since then, the government has announced a raft of policies designed to address this – with mixed success. The decline appeared to stabilise {what does it mean?} after the government implemented the “mother capital” reform that paid mothers roughly $10,000 to have more than one child.

Then in 2009, Rosstat, the government statistics agency, measured a small uptick at last: the population rose by 23,000 compared with a year earlier, the first annual rise since 1992.
{

Year	events			per 1000
	live births	deaths	increase	birth rate	death rate	increase rate
	urban and rural population together
1950	2745997	1031010	1714987	26,9	10,1	16,8
1960	2782353	886090	1896263	23,2	7,4	15,8
1970	1903713	1131183	772530	14,6	8,7	5,9
1980	2202779	1525755	677024	15,9	11,0	4,9
1990	1988858	1655993	332865	13,4	11,2	2,2
1995	1363806	2203811	-840005	9,3	15,0	-5,7
2000	1266800	2225332	-958532	8,7	15,3	-6,6
2001	1311604	2254856	-943252	9,0	15,6	-6,6
2002	1396967	2332272	-935305	9,7	16,2	-6,5
2003	1477301	2365826	-888525	10,2	16,4	-6,2
2004	1502477	2295402	-792925	10,4	16,0	-5,6
2005	1457376	2303935	-846559	10,2	16,1	-5,9
2006	1479637	2166703	-687066	10,4	15,2	-4,8
2007	1610122	2080445	-470323	11,3	14,6	-3,3
2008	1713947	2075954	-362007	12,1	14,6	-2,5
2009	1761687	2010543	-248856	12,4	14,2	-1,8
2010	1788948	2028516	-239568	12,5	14,2	-1,7

}
This statistic was, however, controversial among professionals. Igor Beloborodov, director of the Demographic Research Institute in Moscow, is one of a number of experts who believe the increase was arrived at by a statistical sleight of hand – the rules on the registration of immigrants were changed prior to the study. “They relaxed a number of criteria, and voila!, there was growth,” he says.

“It was [politically] impossible that so many policies could be announced and they would have no effect,” he says, “so they had to make some effect happen.”

Rosstat denied the charge, insisting its methodology was credible. Since then the population has resumed its downward trend. Figures released last month revealed that the population of the Russian Federation declined by 80,000 in the first eight months of the year, to 142.8m, and births fell from 1.27m over the same period to under 1m.

While Russia’s population began to fall in absolute terms in 1992, the seeds of the decline were planted two decades earlier. In the mid-1960s, when Stalin-era policies to promote childbirth ended {if ever existed, e.g., collectivization was definitely population reduction policy, as well as multiple wars, and permanent terror}, birth rates began to decline and death rates edged up.

Indeed, the birth rate today of 12.5 per 1,000 people is less than half the Stalin-era high of 26.9 in 1950. The death rate, at 14.2 per 1,000 people, is also almost double that of 1960, when the figure was 7.4.

Krupnov believes the total number of premature deaths that can be attributed to the collapse of the economic system is in the order of 10m-20m people {impressive range (D-2D) that reveals nothing behind the estimate}. This compares with the figure of roughly 22m deaths in the second world war {he lies even here}.

The problem is not just confined to Russia. Serious population decline is also affecting other eastern European countries, including Ukraine, Bulgaria and Hungary.

Most strikingly, the death rate for Russian men in the age group of 22-45 has risen sharply – to a rate that is three to five times that of western Europe. Alcohol-related accidents and disease account for a large proportion, though Krupnov says the reasons for this lie deeper. “If you suddenly plunge a knife into your heart, the cause of your death is the knife. But that is not the reason. The reason for all these deaths among males is not alcohol – that is just a symptom.”

He blames the structure of the economy for a surge in male depression which has caused death rates to soar. “There are simply fewer career paths, fewer ways for men to realise themselves, fewer chances to be a professional and gain respect and recognition,” he says.

“Today, the biggest problem we are facing is male mortality.”

Another culprit is the high abortion rate – an average of 53 abortions per 1,000 women {actually 32}, the highest in the world. There were 2m abortions in Russia last year {1 in fact: Rosstat reported for 2010 1,186,108, of them 5-10% are miscarriages, i.e., not induced abortions}. “If we cut this in half, suddenly we’d have a baby boom,” Beloborodov says {how? what is the magic?}.

He does not advocate banning abortions, but “lowering this figure does depend on addressing the reasons why people have abortions”, he says.

“We’ve had 70 years of communism, where the two enemies of the party were the family and the church. This has led to moral degradation. Now we have a consumer society where everything is judged by price and people judge their happiness as paramount. The level of egoism is catastrophic. People don’t want to have children because it is a sacrifice and people do not want to sacrifice,” he says.

Moscow has set a target of lifting the country’s population to 145m by 2025 (from the current level of 142.8m). Most experts, however, believe this to be unrealistic. Indeed, many believe that if the population is to grow, this can be achieved only through immigration.

Russia has already begun to take in migrants on an unprecedented scale, with both recorded and unrecorded migrants swelling the population of Moscow alone by 8m in the past decade, according to estimates {authors ;)}.

However, immigration presents problems for stability, as demonstrated by ethnic riots in Moscow between Russians and migrant youths in December, which were barely contained by the police.

Further migration – which is being driven by a booming Russian economy attracting labour from the comparatively poor central Asia and Caucasus regions – could lead to radical shifts in the country’s ethnic make up. This is helping to fuel tensions which just 20 years ago caused the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Beloborodov believes that taking into account illegal – that is, unregistered – migrants, Russia’s population could already be 25 per cent Muslim, well above the official figure of 14 per cent.

This could increase further in future, due to immigration from Muslim-dominated former Soviet republics. Birth rates in Russia’s mainly Muslim south are the highest in the country, with war-torn Chechnya topping the list.

More immigration could also come from overpopulated China. The entire eastern third of Russia, the vast region of Siberia, is home to fewer than 10m people, and the solution is obvious to many – more Chinese immigrants.

This is something that Russian politicians dread. Beloborodov estimates that by 2080, as many as 70 per cent of Russia’s population could be immigrants or the children of immigrants. “It will be a very different country, that’s for sure,” he says.

For Beloborodov, the danger level is if the population falls below 80m – that is the point at which Russia as a country stops being viable.

“At this level Russia becomes unstable politically. Such a vast expanse of territory needs a certain population density,” he points out. Below that level and “we could see the break up of Russia into five or six regional state,” he warns.

{Krupnov and Beloborodov are amateur demographers who are not accepted by professional demographic community}
Russian translation (inosmi)

Ny lag forsvarar aborter i Ryssland

This is the translated from Russian by the author (Per Leander) article in Swedish  Fria Tidningen. There are two translations, Englisg in the bottom

Russia is preparing a new law, which if adopted next year, will mean major restrictions on women's right to abortion.

- It is a violation of women's human rights and legislative change is also contrary to the Constitution, says Nataliya Bitten, feminist bloggers and active in the Russian women's rights organization Za Feminism.

- We believe that restrictions on the ability to safe medical abortion will lead to increased illegal abortions with greater risk to women's lives and health. And in addition lead to more corruption, she said.

The new bill would mean that doctors can deny women abortions unless they are deemed medically necessary. The new law would also meen that married women need permission from their husbands if they want to have an abortion. In addition, the waiting time to get an abortion will be extended with a so-called "think trhough your decision" period.

- It is an example of how society devalues ​​women and portrays us as impulsive, unable to make independent decisions, says Nataliya Bitten.

Russia has 142 million inhabitants, but there is a decreasing population in the world's largest country, as mortality is higher than the birth rate. It is with reference to the low birth rate that the authorities have taken up the proposal on changes to abortion law. Russia also has the highest number of abortions each year with over one million procedures.

- But international experience shows that the prohibition of abortion does not lead to increased birth rate. One example is Poland, where the number of births in 1989 was comparable to the Soviet Union. But now after Poland imposed abortion ban in 1993, the birth rate became lower than in Russia, says Nataliya Bitten.

Meanwhile, the Orthodox Church, which is opposed to abortion for religious reasons, have long lobbied for anti abotion laws. The committee appointed by the Ministry of Health and Social Development to investigate the new bill also included seven religious adviser in the form of a group of Orthodox priests and a couple of mullahs.

- How can a secular state allow Orthodox priests to suggest the laws? exclaims Nataliya Bitten.

Her organization Za Feminism is fighting in collaboration with several women's rights organizations in Moscow and St. Petersburg to bring people's attention on the new bill, including through demonstrations and leafleting.

Russia has historically been very liberal towards abortions. Soviet Russia was in 1920 the first country in the world to introduce legal abortion. A women's right which has remained in force until today, with the exception of a ban on abortion that existed during the Stalinist period from 1936 to 1954. Under current Russian law, abortion is legal up to twelve week, and has to be performed for free by doctors without question.

- We are convinced that the best way to reduce abortions is with cheaper contraception and sex education in schools, says Nataliya Bitten.

independent cc myths

Contraception: Busting the myths

We have more birth control options than ever but we've never been so confused

Tuesday, 16 August 2011

By Jane Feinmann 

The Pill is widely held to be one of the leading inventions of the 20th century, giving women power over their bodies. Yet half a century after its launch, birth control in the UK remains hit and miss – with 600 abortions every day and more than 40 per cent of pregnancies unplanned.

It's not that we take risks: three out of four women are using some form of contraception when they get pregnant. A new YouGov survey shows that we may not be sufficiently careful when we decide on which contraception to use. One in two spend less than half an hour choosing – less time than they take to pick a new washing machine. Inevitably, decisions are based on half-truths and gossip rather than getting informed. Here are the top myths experts say are to blame for our contraception mistakes – and how we could behave differently.

Myth: The Pill is the most effective contraceptive

Reality: On paper, the Pill has a failure rate of just 0.3 per cent, making it among the most effective types of contraceptive. In real life, however, the failure rate is 8 per cent – with one in 12 women forgetting to take up to four pills every month. "The riskiest time to forget to take a Pill is just after the week off medication that is built in to most oral contraceptive regimes," says Dr Diana Mansour, head of sexual health services at Newcastle General Hospital. "The same is true of contraceptive patches."

What to do: The Pill has major benefits but doesn't suit everyone. "It's not just personality that you need to take into account. Women who work shifts regularly or cross time-zones, such as air stewards for instance, will have problems taking the Pill on time," says the Family Planning Association's information manager, Lynn Hearton. An effective aide-mémoire is the "everyday Pill" (brand names with ED added), which contains seven dummy pills so you don't break the habit.

Myth: Condoms are useful only to prevent STDs in casual sex

Reality: Available in a range of thickness, size and texture, with sophisticated lubricants, condoms are "brilliant" for couples in and out of long-term relationships, says Hearton: "Used properly, they are very effective with no side effects."

As the only barrier method that can help to prevent some sexually transmitted infections (STIs), condoms are also seen as best for casual sex. However, the failure rate drops from 2 per cent in perfect use to as low as 15 per cent in typical use in one-night stands. "Anything can go wrong in the heat of the moment," says Hearton.

What to do: Practise condom negotiation with the help of the International Planned Parenthood Federation's website: ind.pn/condomnegotiation.

Myth: Long-acting reversible contraception (LARCs) is difficult to remove and can cause infertility

Reality: Only 8 per cent of women use long-acting contraceptives, including implants, injections, the copper coil (IUD) and hormonal coil (IUS); but usage is higher in Scandinavia and much of Europe where women are better informed. NICE (the National Institute for Clinical Health and Excellence) recognises that lack of information results in under-use and requires all health professionals to provide it.

LARCs are suitable for women of all ages; they are very effective, easy to remove and do not affect fertility – apart from the injection, which delays conception by a few months. "One of the best, the IUS with the brand name Mirena, is used by at least of half of female family planning doctors," says Dr Mansour. "It's worry-free, yet allows you to become pregnant within a month of having it taken out."

What to do: Fitting long-acting contraceptives requires training. Find a specialist in your surgery or clinic.

Myth: Girl talk is the best route to a properly informed decision

Reality: It's the worst possible way to decide – but common, say experts. "Women say: 'My friend uses the Pill and her skin looks great so can I have the same brand?' or 'I'd never have an IUD because I know someone who had terrible periods'," says Lynn Hearton. "It leads women to make bad choices."

What to do: Your own research – easy to do online. Many experts recommend the FPA's interactive page: www.fpa.org.uk/mycontraceptiontool.

Myth: Contraception only affects fertility

Reality: Different contraceptive methods can bring major health benefits. Heavy periods or endometriosis? IUS makes your periods lighter, shorter or stop. The combined Pill can help alleviate heavy, painful periods. PMS? Combined Pill, especially when used continuously. Acne, hirsutism or polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)? Combined Pill containing anti-androgenic progestogen. Yasmin is the best product for mild symptoms, while Dianette is suitable for the more severe disorders. Low libido? There are claims that the contraceptive ring (Nuva ring self-inserted in the vagina monthly), improves blood flow to genital areas, thereby boosting libido. A handful of studies also suggest that contraceptive Pills with lower levels of progestogen boost mood and prevent vaginal dryness. "These claims are slightly suspect, as female libido is probably more complicated," says Dr Mansour. "But if you are comfortable with your contraception, you'll probably have better sex."

What to do: Take account of side effects when making a choice.

Myth: Once you've finished your family, sterilisation is best

Reality: Sterilisation is effective and new methods such as Essure, involving placing a permanent, fibrous implant in both fallopian tubes, are trouble-free, allowing sterilisation to take place in your lunch-hour (not including counselling and post-op checks). "But bear in mind that sterilisation is rarely reversible," says Dr Mansour. "It may make more sense to use a long-acting contraceptive, such as Mirena. It can remain in your womb and even be used eventually as part of HRT. But it can also be removed."

What to do: Consider all your options before asking for a referral.

Myth: The "morning after pill" is the most effective way of preventing pregnancy after sex

Reality: As well as the emergency Pill, the copper intrauterine device (IUD) can also be used as emergency contraception as long it is fitted up to five days (120 hours) after unprotected sex.

What to do: In many areas, pharmacists hand out the morning-after pill.

Myth: Doctors expect you to know what contraceptive you want.

Reality: "No health practitioner expects their patient to be an expert," says Hearton. One common scenario is to make an appointment to see the GP and simply ask for the Pill, as one in two women do. "The result is that they're most likely to end up with the cheapest possible Pill, such the 30mcg levonorgestrel Pill, which costs 80p and which is the most commonly prescribed oral contraceptive," says Dr Tina Peers, consultant in contraception and sexual health at Surrey PCT. "Unfortunately, up to 60 per cent of women discontinue the Pill within a year, often because of unwanted symptoms."

What to do: "We are lucky to have 15 methods of free contraception. So spend time getting informed before you see an expert," says Dr Peers. Make an appointment at your nearest sexual health clinic, staffed by specialist doctors and nurses, or see a practice nurse or specialist GP at your local practice.

Carl Djerassi on the foto