Replies

Here's where Lippman was pretty much spot on with her observations (I'll ad my own personal first-hand based observations):

"The hardships of the early post-communist years caused bitter disillusionment. The insecurity and disparities in wealth under fledgling capitalism brought anxiety and resentment."

A lot of Russians expected that with the declaration of "freedom" and "democracy" there would be instant wealth and higher-living standards. They had heard all of the successful capitalism/democracy (two different things) on the BBC, VOA, RFE, Deutsche Welle, etc., during the Cold War, but they had no real idea that the West, in particular the United States took years to reach the level we are at and that without a consistent stable democratically run government wealth and higher-living standards are unattainable.

"The task of reforming a nation crippled and demoralized by decades under an inhuman regime proved insurmountable. It would have taken a true visionary to mobilize the Russian people and pursue the path of modernization."

Unfortunately, what they got was a Russian president who meant well (Yeltsin) but whose own personal demons made him susceptable to corrupt henchmen and his own daughters' desire for immense wealth and privilege. The irony being that Yeltsin gained his popularity by being the sole "Communist party leader" actually cracking down on corruption (in the waning days of the Soviet Union). Also, the little guy (the old, the veterans, etc) were ripped off by the likes of Berezovsky and Gusinsky and the other oligarchs who got rich by robbing and cheating people out of their government issued property vouchers.

Add to this that the US, under Klintoon, (and led by Gore on the Chernomyrdyn-Gore Commission), looked the other way at the Russian kleptocracy.

"And Vladimir Putin is no visionary. He addressed his nation's pain and anger by offering a return to traditional paternalism -- a model that people welcomed with a sense of relief. For even if the government was habitually self-seeking, incompetent and corrupt, it was once again possible for people to avoid making choices and assuming responsibility for Russia's future."

Two things here - 1.) Putin was put into place by Yeltsin - some say it was because of his inexperience in politics that Yeltsin was convinced (by Berezovsky?) to anoint him successor. This argument may be born out by the fact that Putin gave Yeltsin and his family immunity from prosecution. 2.) Masha nailed what a lot of Russians I know suffer from - the yearning for a paternalistic government so that they can absolve themselves of any responsibility for their own woes. It's sort of like the "welfare syndrome" we have in the States.

70+ years of the Communist horror is a hard thing to shake off in a few years. Especially with the disaster that became Yeltsin's legacy. There are some very talented and honest people in Russia, they deserve to be supported - but I don't see a light at the end of their tunnel of problems....