----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
> But Yeltsin was a horror, a total disaster for Russia. Putin's no
> angel, but Russia's in lots better shape now than it was under
> Yeltsin. Isn't this view of "international debt actitivists" rather
> provincial?
We agree that *both* Yeltsin and Putin are venal elites... but if Yeltsin defaulted even simply due to financial repayment problems, that still was a useful stance, had it persuaded other countries' elites to give it a try. 'Provincial'? The Jubilee South activists I learn from are amongst the most serious internationalists writing anywhere.
And Chris, you missed the point (by clipping the sentences from Peter that got me annoyed). If LBO investors and other portfolio financiers can get 'generous dividends' from Russia, when we had all hoped that the 1998 default would trigger much more fundamental critiques of global financial flows, then it is a tragedy, a missed opportunity. If anyone is against Third World countries defaulting, do let me know.
Cheers, Patrick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Doss" <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com>
> ? I don't see it. The Kremlin just de facto
> renationalized a stolen state asset to the thunderous
> applause of the population. Where's the venality?
Absolutely tragic that geopolitics and venality have brought the Russian elites back to this point, now.
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Lavelle
Like or dislike what his happening in Russia's corporate environment, there is no doubt that the Kremlin will control Russia's very lucrative energy resources. Who knows? But my gut tells me that the Kremlin will pay generous dividends.