Amidst all the media intoxication with the Iran protests, you can count on Russia to deliver a well-advised downer. Sean at Sean’s Russia Blog helpfully provides a digested read of the press reactions to the post-election unrest.
“Iran”, Sean writes, “only highlights the nadir of political change in Russia. “Perhaps,” Kolesnikov writes, “one of the few comparatively poor states, where a catch-up revolution is now impossible by force of the shapelessness of political protest is Russia. Our political revolutions occur in kitchens and social salons. And protest continues to be purely social, and Pikalevo-like.”
“Perhaps this is why the Russian press lacks the adulation that one finds in the Anglo press. Whereas the American politicos see an Iran budding into a potential Persian America, the Russians are more pessimistic and emphasize the limits of political change; limits which undoubtedly stem from their own historical experience with “revolutions.”
Worth reading also is the comments thread that follows the post:
“Russia liberals, of course, are asking similar questions along similar lines. “Why isn’t Russia Iran?” asks Alexander Golts.”
How about, “the Russian government enjoys popular legitimacy, whereas the Iranian government (apparently) does not”?
Isn’t green the color of jihad? Has no one noticed this?
How about, “the Russian government enjoys popular legitimacy, whereas the Iranian government (apparently) does not”?
You know as well as I do that Russian liberals don’t accept this. They believe that popular opinion is always manipulated, the polls that show the popularity of the government as fixed, and their voices repressed. This is the only way they can explain why they, as the righteous, are not adored by the people. My suspicion is that Iran makes them even more miserable.