Arno asks: >Why Jim?? Not necessarily?
I don't quite understand this. I guess it means that I see the worst kind of national chauvanism as necessarily linked to the protectionist path. I didn't say "necessarily." (I never do.) But I would say "very likely": the folks who replace Yeltsin are likely to be Lebed or Lebed-like people, who mobilize their nation in some kind of Slavic nationalism. (Probably Zhirnovsky (sp?) will not be involved, since he's a clown. That doesn't mean that someone more scary than he might take over.)
If Russia weren't in such crisis, a moderate, less obnoxious, kind of national protectionism might prevail.
If the political balance were different, i.e., if there were a mass movement of the workers and other oppressed groups, restriction on trade might be part of a socialist strategy.
But as usual, I am not an expert on Russia. Nor do I play one on TV.
BTW, Arno, please make it clear what passages are _yours_ and what passages belong to the person(s) you are commenting on.
Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html