#10 - JRL 8070
From: "Kirill Pankratov" <pkirill88@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Conspiracies and conspirators (Felgenhauer, 8057 #13, Lichfield, 8064 #15)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004

The 2004 Russian presidential elections is not exactly a dramatic and suspenseful affair. Putin’s campaign style is decidedly dull and business-like, without even notable populist stunts. It is widely accepted that he will win the elections with huge lead over all other candidates. His alleged control of media (to some extent true for TV, nowhere close for newspapers & magazines, or the internet) unlikely plays major role in this. There was no less coverage of Yeltsin during the spring of 1996, and in 1989-91 I’ve seen far more Gorbachev on TV than I ever wanted to, yet he had no illusions about putting himself through popular vote.

Part of the answer is that most parties (with the exception of “Rodina”) haven’t shown any new faces (or ideas), that hasn’t been around for at least a dozen years. But the main reason can be found beyond media coverage, politicking and campaign rhetoric. The famous question “Are you better off today than four years ago?” fully applies here and a great majority of Russians reply with a firm affirmative answer. Aside from the noise of scandals, intrigues and a few unfortunate tragedies, the big news in the last few months were largely positive. Economic growth strongly accelerated from the previous year to over 7 percents, growth in investments is even more dramatic. New reforms are coming in. Beginning of this year has seen more tax cuts (VAT, social security, elimination of sales tax). About a hundred funds and financial institutions began to vigorously compete for people’s money coming from newly created individual retirement accounts. After getting tough on blatant corporate lobbyists, banking reform legislation and reduction of regional tax loopholes is proceeding swiftly.

What’s the opposition as well as some people, who are not to happy with Russia being more confident and assertive, to do in this situation? One of the easy roads is that of conspiracies and intrigues, of course.

Last week offered at least two opportunities to engage in flowery conspiracy theories ­ one tragedy, and one farce.

The farcical one is, of course, is disappearance-reappearance of a presidential candidate who is such a terrible scourge of the regime that his campaign should be considered a tremendous success if he would clear more than 1% of total vote.

The whole affair was readily covered by just about everybody, and from various angles and degrees of conspiratology. Among the most entertaining descriptions is the article in The Economist (JRL 8064, #15). The Economist, to be sure, does not have an easy task. In the last few years it mainly prophesied collapse of the Russian economy (and even statehood), with timetable evolving from “immediate” to being qualified by “oil prices drop” and variety of other causes, with certainty gradually approaching a singing event by a certain fat lady. Of course, precisely none of the economic development and trends mentioned above made it to The Economist reports. Since collapse still doesn’t seem to be forthcoming, the pages are left to be filled with lesser fare. The juicy minutiae, such as Rybkin affair, fits the bill better.

Too bad it had so much comedy rather than drama content. Upon returning Rybkin offered explanations as diverse (if none coherent) as “What’s the fuss about?” to “I’ve had a series of important secret meetings to attend” to some sort abduction by aliens (or, at least by Putin’s secret services, which are surely just as inhuman). As Mark Twain would say: “Let us draw the curtain of charity over the rest of the scene”. The Berezovsky’s shenanigans are not as cute as those of the little boy Tom Sawyer, of course. They would look downright sinister had they not been (fortunately) so pathetic.

The explosion in Moscow subway was the tragedy, bringing out some of the more irresponsible conspiracy-mongering. To be sure, conspiracy theories are spread in the aftermath of practically every catastrophic or shocking event. It depends on the political agenda, responsibility and sometimes plain human decency whether outlandish theories die out quickly or being put on life support as long as possible.

I can find many flaws in US policies, but it never occurred to me to give any credence to various stupid conspiracy theories spread around in relation to 9/11 (even considering that Bush administration used it, with plenty of lies, to justify the Iraq invasion). I recall, for example, in the popular emerging markets investment web forum which I follow (with participants from many different countries), in the hours after WTC attack there was large outpouring of grief and support, particularly from many Russians who rarely posted on the forum before (the archive of these messages is still easily accessible on the web).

Many Americans apparently feel the same way in regards to the Moscow subway explosion. The “Letters” section of the last week “Moscow Times” was dominated by messages from ordinary readers expressing sympathy and solidarity with victims.

A totally different picture (and a definite political agenda) emerges from the roster of the OpEd columns of the same paper. All of those who mentioned the subway explosion, spent exactly zero words condemning the perpetrators or expressing grief for the lost lives. Essentially, their writing contained little more than poorly concealed gloating and the insinuations that “they had it coming” (Who? The people in the subway?).

To some, any other coverage wrong. Masha Gessen (JRL 8055, #10) was so disappointed that the bombing in Moscow was “covered, mostly as a straight news story, by most newspapers”. Yes, in her view killing more than 40 innocent people is not a story. The only thing deserving her attention here was an opportunity for nitpicking on Putin’s words about blaming Chechen militants and refusing to negotiate with Maskhadov (which in essence are no different from statements uttered by most politicians in, for example, Israel or India, after terrorist acts in those countries).

And of course, the various goofy theories began to run wild in certain circles. Pavel Felgenhauer spend most of the column space (“Blast stirs up conspiracies”, JRL 8057, #13) alleging that the explosion was just an crime-related accident. While such a possibility can’t be completely discounted, statistical evidence is overwhelming: terrorist acts in public transportation is a frequent occurrence in many countries, while accidental explosions in subways hardly ever happened. Gideon Lichfield in the previously mentioned article in The Economist also speculated on the accident theory and apparently sees yet another conspiracy in the investigation itself: “Since trains were running through the tunnel again only eight hours afterwards, a proper forensic investigation is unlikely”. Could the reason for it be that the explosion (and hence the clues to be found) occurred inside the train, not on the rails?

The fact that all kinds of conspiracies are floating around is itself blamed o the “Putin regime” which apparently invokes so little trust. And just who might be spreading such conspiracies? Why, we don’t have to search for long. One can look at another Felgenhauer’s article, about the bombing at the concert at Tushino stadium last summer (“Was It a Suicide Bombing?”, Moscow Times, July 10, 2003, http://www.cdi.org/russia/264-8.php), where he tries to dismiss the Chechen terrorist connection, despite such a clear evidence that both female suicide bombers of Chechen origin were identified on the spot, and another one failed to carry similar mission, surrendering to the police instead. Yet among the possible culprits in the bombing Felgenhauer fingered… “Russian Orthodox Christian fundamentalists who believe that rock music and rock concerts are Satanist, imposed by America.” Has anybody seen a lot of Russian Orthodox priests and monks with suicide belts? Conspiracy theories often venture into very irrational, but this one would qualify for Guinness record in its own kind.

It is all pretty convenient indeed ­ one article alleges some of the most preposterous conspiracies ever, the other one suggests: “Just look how sick this society is, where such outlandish conspiracies are spreading so widely”.