April 26, 2005
THERE IS NO RUSSIA:
Protest in Urals Seeks Ouster of a Putin Ally (STEVEN LEE MYERS, 4/26/05, NY Times)
Heartened by the political upheavals in two of Russia's neighbors, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, thousands here have staged a series of demonstrations since February calling for the ouster of the president of the Bashkortostan region, Murtaza G. Rakhimov.An ally of President Putin, he has served as the leader of this largely Muslim region, formally an autonomous republic within Russia, since the collapse of the Soviet Union. He won re-election in 2003 in a contest in which his chief opponent withdrew from campaigning, reportedly at the urging of the Kremlin.
The issues are largely local, but the complaints against Mr. Rakhimov's government evoke those that were raised against the recently ousted leaders in Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan and are now increasingly heard about Mr. Putin. They include allegations of manipulated elections, increasing state control of business, and corruption. [...]
"An end will come," Ramil I. Bignov, a businessman and leader of a diverse coalition of Mr. Rakhimov's opponents, said after the latest protest, on April 16. "And it will come soon."
Although Mr. Bignov limited his comments to his hopes for Mr. Rakhimov's political demise, the implications of a successful street campaign against the regional leader would reach Mr. Putin as well, most obviously because Mr. Putin has supported Mr. Rakhimov and because Bashkortostan, like the rebellious Chechen republic, is a part of Russia.
No they aren't. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 26, 2005 9:19 AM
Interesting point. In the US each state has unique characteristics, localized govt, etc. that helps prevent (usually) territories from wanting out of the USA. Russia doesn't have this setup so it is conceivable that territories in Russia would begin to press to get out. Same might be true of other large countries with distinct territories/characteristics (Iraq into 3 parts, etc).
Posted by: AWW at April 26, 2005 11:57 AMNor did they join voluntarily.
Posted by: oj at April 26, 2005 12:05 PM"Did not join voluntarily" is the new criterion for autonomous nationhood, eh? Just lost several of our states there, didn't we? And, by ineluctable extension, the entire South.
Posted by: ghostcat at April 26, 2005 2:14 PM"Did not join voluntarily" is the new criterion for autonomous nationhood, eh? Just lost several of our states there, didn't we? And, by ineluctable extension, the entire South.
Posted by: ghostcat at April 26, 2005 2:14 PMNo, that's why they couldn't leave.
Posted by: oj at April 26, 2005 2:37 PMWhat good is autonomy if one can't change one's mind?
Posted by: ghostcat at April 26, 2005 4:53 PMghostcat - "Autonomy" and "relationship" are incompatible states. When the Federalists triumphed over the Anti-Federalists at the time of the Constitutional ratification, relationship triumphed over autonomy.
Posted by: pj at April 26, 2005 5:04 PMpj -
Right, but oj and I were ping-ponging about sufficient cause for leaving a union. He favors making divorce difficult (as do I) but makes an exception for an unfulfilled partner in a political union. Especially if the union resulted from a shotgun marriage.
Posted by: ghostcat at April 26, 2005 5:15 PMThey aren't partners. Never were. Rape victims needn't stay with rapists.
Posted by: oj at April 26, 2005 5:24 PMUnless we follow Katherine McKinnon's definition, I agree.
Of course, our Union has participated in it's share of hostile takeovers. Wouldn't wanta give CA back. Wait ...
Posted by: ghostcat at April 26, 2005 5:56 PMdamn it, cali produces something like 50% of the vegetables, and 90% of the porn, consumed in this country -- that ought to count for something.
Posted by: cjm at April 26, 2005 10:35 PM