The annual meetings of world leaders, the so-called G8 summits, are often criticized for raising high expectations, but delivering few practical results. Adding to this negative image is the very way the summits are conducted: held in secluded locations under heavy secret service protection, with sessions closed to the media, and with the leaders of the “industrialized” countries themselves performing tightly choreographed acts of “public” appearance for news conferences and photo-ops. Alluding to this year’s location of the summit (Hokkaido, Japan), one observer called G8 summits “Kabuki diplomacy.”

Apparently mindful of their awkward image as “Olympic gods”, the G8 leaders began opening the doors to the club – a bit … At the 2007 Heiligendamm summit in Germany, German Chancellor Angela Merkel invited the leaders of five “emerging economies”: India, China, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa, causing observes speak of a de facto “G8 + 5” format.

This year, invitations were extended to three “major trading nations”: Australia, South Korea, and Indonesia, resulting in a more complicated formula of “G8 + 5 + 3.” In fact, a total of 16 parties participated in the summit, as the European Union had sent its representative too.

Three major issues occupied the agenda of the summit: the world financial crisis, the food crisis, and energy security. Africa was also high on the agenda: the G8 has reiterated its commitment to double aid to the continent by 2010. A five-year plan was articulated to spend $60 billion to combat AIDS, malaria and other diseases. G8 leaders have also issued a strongly worded statement condemning the recent presidential election in Zimbabwe.

The summit has addressed the issue of rapidly increasing food prices around the world. Russia’s president Dmitry Medvedev (this summit was his first) drew attention from his colleagues to the fact that, according to the World Bank, only a quarter of the growth in food prices can be accounted for by the increased consumption in large countries such as India and China, whereas the rest of the growth is caused by accelerating use of the biofuel. President Medvedev called for the speediest transition to more efficient types of biofuels that would prevent taking over agricultural field and facilities that are designed to produce food.

Russia also called for the so-called Grain Summit, which would discuss the reasons for the rise in grain prices and possible ways to stabilize them.

However, the major achievement of this year’s summit has been a joint communiqué declaring that the countries will “consider and adopt” a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This pledge, dubbed “50 by 2050”, is to become part of a new United Nations treaty – to be negotiated in Copenhagen at the end of 2009 – to replace the 1999 Kyoto Protocol.

Two aspects make this agreement especially meaningful. First, it was for the first time that the United States, the world’s major pollutant, has agreed to join other major industrialized countries in their efforts to reduce emissions.

President Bush came to office in 2000, while denying the very existence of climate change, and for years, he resisted committing to any numerical goals of emission reduction. At the 2007 summit in Germany, the United States was the only country that refused to adopt the 50 percent target. President Bush’s turnaround, being seven years late as it is, is a remarkable step forward. More encouraging, the two presidential candidates, Sens. Obama and McCain, have promised to consider even larger emission reductions than agreed upon by Bush.

Second, the G8 communiqué makes it clear that developing countries such as China and India, who are rapidly turning into major greenhouse-gas polluters, must be included in any climate change treaty.

For years, China and India have maintained that industrialized counties must bear the greatest burden of emission reduction. Even at the summit, the “big five” – India, China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa – reiterated that the developed countries must “take the lead” on the issue. Yet, for the first time in history, they have agreed to take their share of responsibility and to commit to long-range cuts in emissions.

The latest G8 summit shows that when world leaders act – if even in the ornamental fashion of the Kabuki Theater – a pressing world problem could be addressed. It is inaction that may result in a Greek Tragedy.

Fufloh is the best word to describe the Washington Post’s “coverage” of Russia of late.

In May, this flagship of American journalism offered its space to a Oleg Kozlovsky, a petty criminal who calls himself a “pro-democracy advocate.” There was nothing remarkable in delusional Kozlovsky’s babbling except for his claim that he wrote his Post piece when sitting in prison.

The image of a “pro-democracy advocate” writing articles in a Russian pen was so incredible that one of the Instablogs’ Citizen Journalists rushed to the rescue. We were told that in fact, Kozlovsky wrote the article weeks before he was arrested. Post’s editors just “published” it when he was in prison. Nice try. The truth is that Kozlovsky never wrote anything for the Post. He simply “donated” his name, and his Post’s handlers did the writing.

Typical fufloh.

Last weekend, the Post added yet another masterpiece to its Russian collection. It published an article allegedly authored by a Julia Latynina described as a Russian journalist and novelist. A journalist Ms. Latynina is not, unless you call “journalism” a compilation of second-hand rumors and sultry gossips. A better word to describe the new Post star is storyteller. And, boy, stories she tells!

Ms. Latynina brings us to the upper echelons of Russian society populated by “ministers, their wives and their children.” Added to the mix are “their lovers, … high-priced prostitutes, high on cocaine.” (Ms. Latynina obviously knows that sex and drugs sell, even at the Post!).

Here is my favorite story:

“On a rainy September evening…, I witnessed an accident on Moscow’s government thoroughfare – the famous Kutuzovsky Prospect. A silver Lexus, traveling at what looked to be about 90 miles an hour, flew out of the far left lane and crossed four lanes of oncoming traffic, crashing into several cars.”

Wait a minute! Everyone who has visited Moscow at least once over the past few years knows that the city is a brutal traffic nightmare. And Ms. Latynina wants us to believe that during evening commute hours, a car travels through downtown Moscow at 90 miles an hour? Perhaps, not. Most likely, she meant 90 kilometers an hour (although this still sounds incredible), but the Post’s “assistant editor Zofia Smardz” who “translated” the story from Russian didn’t know the difference. Smells fufloh, doesn’t it?

But let the story continue:

“Within the hour, I learned that the driver of the Lexus was a 27-year-old woman with no known occupation.

(This is how politically correct Zofia Smardz translated “high-priced prostitute, high on cocaine”.)

With her in the car was a deputy minister of economic development.”

A friend of Ms. Latynina (she always has “friends” to help her create her fascinating stories) rushed to the scene, but it was too late:

“The minister was already dead.”

“The minister”? Only an hour ago, this unfortunate gentleman was “a deputy minister”? Those crazy Russians! They promoted the guy to the minister of economic development while he was dying in the car accident caused by a “woman with no known occupation.”

Typical fufloh.

Back in September 2007, the post of the minister of economic development was occupied by German Gref, who’s alive and well and is currently the president of Russia’s Sberbank. A careful examination of the list of 30 past and present deputy ministers of economic development (26 males and 4 females) reveals no one whose tenure was terminated in September 2007. But should this fact prevent the Post’s editors from telling a good story?

There seems to be another way of translating “fufloh” in English: F-rated journalism.

Sen. Barack Obama has announced that he would opt out of the public financing (and the spending limits attached to it) for the general election. Good for him!

I think there is a profound confusion in terminology when it comes to presidential campaign financing.

Obama rejects campaign contributions from federal lobbyists and political action committees (PAC). Instead, in his fund-raising, he relies on a network of 1.5 million individual contributors. Of the $263 million Obama has raised so far, 47% (or 93% of the total 3 million contributions) came in amounts of $200 or less.

This is an impressive sign of tremendous public support for his campaign. And yet, for some mysterious reasons this money is called “private.”

On the contrary, the $84.1 million per candidate of the so-called “public money” is in reality federal money collected as the $3 check-off on federal tax returns. Why on earth this money is called “public”? The correct term here would be “government.”

In 2008, the U.S. federal government will spend about $20 billion on what it is calling “general government.” I assume part of this money will go to funding activities of the President of the United States: his staff, security, travel, etc. Now, we are told that we should fund activities of people who want to become the President of the United States.

Why? Those people are not poorer than the average American taxpayer. Why should I fund a limping campaign of a guy who is unable to raise money himself and whose political views I don’t share? Are there not other projects to pour into $168.2 million that would otherwise be wasted on stupid TV ads?

Pundits say that by his decision, Obama has brought the “public” financing system on the edge of extinction. Good for him again!

Critics of Russia’s Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, can on occasion impress us with a vitriolic tirade – usually articulated in a rude language – but not with the common sense or the knowledge of basic facts. Take, for example, a self-proclaimed Russia “expert”, Anders Aslund. For years, Dr. Aslund has preached imminent collapse of the “criminal Putin regime” before the end of Putin’s second presidency. But September last year, Aslund suddenly changed the tune and forecasted that Putin will remain in the office indefinitely by “possibly following declaration of a national military emergency.” Go figure.

The fact that 55-year-old, healthy, fit and energetic Putin – who, by the way, is full 5 years away from the official retirement age –didn’t go fishing after completing his 2 terms as president, seems to be especially upsetting to his critics. They interpret this as yet another evidence of Putin’s “authoritarian” instinct and, more generally, as a proof that Putin’s Russia has become an “autocracy.”

The logic of the last claim deserves consideration. It implies that leaders of “authoritarian regimes” stay in power indefinitely, whereas heads of “true” democracies behave like comets in the sky: a brisk moment and they are gone, so that the voters cannot even remember their faces.

The problem with this logic is that it contradicts reality. For example, what do these 10 countries – Belgium, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Norway, Spain, Sweden, The Netherland, and the United Kingdom – have in common? Well, they all are prosperous Western Europe democracies. True, but they are also monarchies, meaning that the heads of states – Kings, Queens, Grand Dukes, or Princes – acquire and retain power not by elections, but by hereditary succession.

Come on, some would argue, the Monarchs in these countries have no real power. True enough, yet in Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherland, the Monarch appoints prime minister following a parliamentary election.

Gotcha, some readers would say. Here is the key: the prime ministers. Those guys are elected and they rotate frequently. Do they really? Former British Primer Minister, Tony Blair, has stayed “in power” for more than 10 years (compared to Putin’s 8 years and 1+ month) and then turned the reign to a hand-picked successor, Gordon Brown. In contrast to Putin’s successor, Dmitry Medvedev, who has been elected in a direct popular vote, Mr. Brown hasn’t been elected by anyone, except for a bunch of Labor Party apparatchiks.

Oh, those are monarchies. What about European “republics”? Here comes Jacques Chirac who has been President of France for 12 years, not counting 2 two-year stints as Prime Minister and 18 years as Mayor of Paris. And how about Urho Kekkonen who served twice as Prime Minister of Finland (for about 6 years total) before becoming the country’s President for the next 26(!) years. Aren’t France and Finland “perfect” democracies?

For some, perhaps, not perfect enough. They would frown upon aging “Old Europe” and argue that the “real” democracy is possible only “on this side of the Pond.”

OK, let’s check facts again. As pointed out by Hendrik Hertzberg, forty percent of Americans have never lived when there wasn’t a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. If Hillary Clinton had been elected and reelected – thanks God, she won’t — the nation could have gone 28 years in a row with the same two families governing the country (36 with elder Bush’s vice-presidency). And make no mistake: this isn’t about persona in the Oval Office; this is about powerful special interests running the country from behind, be it oil companies or teachers’ unions.

And then, there is, of course, Chelsea Clinton.

In all fairness to the Bushes and the Clintons, they come on the heels of Adams’s, Harrisons, and Roosevelts. And then there were/are Tafts, Kennedys, Lodges, Bays, Cuomos, Daleys, Dodds, and Romneys who have made it to the White House only once or haven’t made it at all (for now).

And then, there are five U.S. Senators whose dads were Senators before them. And then, there is Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, whose dad was a congressman. (Of the 244 women who have served in the House and the Senate, 46 succeeded their husbands and 12 their fathers.)

One wouldn’t call it monarchy, of course; however, elements of “hereditary succession” are hard to miss.

Coming back to Putin and his critics. For as long as Putin has desire to serve his country and enjoys solid public support, he should stay in politics. Those who jealously count every year of his political career would better look closer to home.

Naturally, no one uses such a monstrous vocabulary. A record seems to belong to the titan of the Russian literature, Aleksandr Pushkin, whose poems and prose reportedly utilized 24,000 words.

The rest of us settle for much less: it’s believed that one needs no more than 1,500 words to read Russian and about 400-500 words to maintain common conversation.

For some, that number still might appear like a lot. But this is only if you want to speak and read “regular” Russian. However, if your goal is more ambitious, that is, if you want to become a Russia “expert”, then all you need to learn is three words.

The first word is “gulag.” This word, introduced to the world by the Nobel Price winner, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, describes the elaborate system of labor camps used to repress political opposition in Stalin’s Soviet Union. By some accounts, more than 18 million people passed trough Gulag from 1929 to 1953; many of them have perished due to inhuman conditions of malnutrition and hard labor.

But this is not how Russia “experts” use the word. They invoke “gulag” every time when a mentally-disturbed street hooligan, calling himself “democrat”, gets arrested for the violation of public order. I already profiled one of the contemporary “gulag victims”, Oleg Kozlovsky, on the Instablogs. The only objective Russia “experts” seems to pursue by elevating pathetic clowns like Kozlovsky to the status of Gulag martyrs is to desecrate the memories of innocent victims of Stalin’s terror.

The second word is “K.G.B.” Never mind that K.G.B. doesn’t exist: in 1991, it was split into FSB (Federal Security Service) and SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service). But for Russia “experts” it doesn’t matter, for they use “K.G.B.” as a symbol by putting the “K.G.B.” label on everything they don’t understand or dislike.

This is very convenient: you call something or someone “K.G.B.”, and that’s it. Everyone gets it: it’s evil. No further explanation is needed.

That’s why Russia “experts” love so much the phrase: “President Putin, a former K.G.B. spy…” You say that and any discussion of Putin’s policies becomes meaningless. What’s there to discuss if he’s K.G.B.?

(I wonder why no one ever uses the phrase “President Bush, a former alcoholic…”?)

There is another usage of “K.G.B.”, usually in the context of a “K.G.B. man.” When Russia “experts” have nothing to say on the substance – which happens all the time –they use this phrase to slander their opponents. A fellow Citizen Journalist, for example, called me “K.G.B. man” when she didn’t like my post.

The third word is “Putin.” I already wrote on my blog that the obsession of Russia “experts” with Vladimir Putin is mind-boggling; I even suspect there is something sexual here.

But not dissimilar to “K.G.B.”, Russia “experts” rarely apply “Putin” to a concrete person. Rather, they use the word in almost supernatural sense — to describe the origin of all “evil” in the world.

It would seem that since the election of Dmitry Medvedev president of Russia, the word “Medvedev” should gradually replace “Putin” in the lexicon of Russia “experts.” Not so fast. Medvedev was born after Gulag has ceased to exist and he has no K.G.B. connections. By the very virtue of his background, Medvedev is challenging the sacredness of the “gulag-K.G.B.-Putin” axes of evil.

Besides, compared to a simple, two-syllable “Putin”, three-syllable “Medvedev” with an awkward run of “d” and “v’” is difficult to learn. If a leading U.S. presidential candidate struggles to pronounce Medvedev’s name, what do you expect from Russia “experts” who are so busy writing multiple blogs that they have no time – nor desire or skills – to do their home work?

Oh yes, to become a Russia “expert”, you should also learn a few accessory words, usually semi-profanities. Russia “experts” use them to “argue” with their opponents. Here is a sample of those: “illiterate moron”, “Kremlin shill”, “very bad liar”, and (my favorite) “Kremlin’s nasty little insect.”

However, if you choose to learn “normal” Russian, rest your soul with a Pushkin’s jewel. It’s beautiful, even in English:

I remember a wonderful moment
As before my eyes you appeared,
Like a vision, fleeting, momentary,
Like a spirit of the purest beauty.

(“To A. P. Kern”)

The anti-Saakashvili opposition naturally claims that the election results have been rigged. They may well have a point as the evidence of violations is overwhelming. Even professional jerks from the OSCE (The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe), who always have their reports written even before arriving in a country, had no other choice as to admit:

“The numerous allegations of intimidation of candidates, party activists and state employees negatively affected the campaign environment. While difficult to verify, particularly in a polarized environment, some of the claims examined by the OSCE/ODIHR EOM were clearly found to be credible. […] These included a number of verified claims of pressure on opposition supporters by local officials to desist from campaigning, and of threats by school principals and UNM officials that teachers would lose their jobs if they continued to work for opposition parties. There were also allegations that people with relatives in pre-trial detention could supposedly secure their release if they collected pledges of votes for the UNM.”

And more:

“The distinction between state and political party was frequently blurred. For example, Government social programs such as the distribution of fuel vouchers in rural areas were at times combined with campaign activities for the UNM. […] Opposition parties further alleged that the UNM enjoyed unequal access to administrative resources. Regional governors engaged in campaigning for the UNM while carrying out work duties, which, as they are public servants, and not political officials, is prohibited.”

And more:

“Most monitored TV channels, including public TV, devoted significant and favorable coverage to activities of the authorities. […] Media coverage of appearances of the President, Government ministers and local government representatives at ceremonial events, often in the presence of UNM candidates introduced as such, indirectly benefited the UNM campaign.”

The opposition now threatens to boycott the new legislative body at all. A parliament composed of deputies of the ruling pro-presidential party only, however desirable to Saakashvili and his cronies, would be an embarrassment to those who have restlessly promoted Saakashvili’s Georgia as a “beacon of liberty.”

(I happen to doubt that these threats are credible. In almost every post-Soviet country — in Georgia, for sure — the “democratic opposition” can be easily bought by money or promises of plush government positions).

No matter what the final outcome, it’s hard to deny that the results of the election reflect the popular will of Georgians, especially in rural areas where UNM’s positions are traditionally strong and Saakashvili is genuinely popular.

So, why all this fuss about the election?

Georgia’s political discourse closely follows the pattern typical for countries in the post-Soviet space: a genuinely popular national leader — an economic liberal with unmistakably authoritarian streak – leads “his” party to an electoral victory amid heavy use of the notorious “administrative resource”, dominance of the state-owned TV, and lack of coherent opposition. Conceptually, Saakashvili is not very different from such successful post-Soviet leaders as Russia’s Vladimir Putin or Kazakhstan’s Nursultan Nazarbayev.

The fuss about Misha is because he was presented quite differently in the West. In 2005, president Bush, impressed with Saakashvili’s pro-Western rhetoric, called Georgia “a beacon of liberty.” Two United States senators, Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John McCain (R-AZ) made fools of themselves by nominating Saakashvili for the Nobel Peace Prize.

The first blow to Saakashvili’s image of a perfect democrat came in November 2007 when the riot police equipped with tear gas and batons were sent to disperse what was called a peaceful anti-government demonstration. The shock from Saakashvili’s actions was so severe that the Western media — incapable as ever to look into essence of things — have overlooked the fact that the “peaceful demonstration” was a deliberate provocation orchestrated by the opposition.

Then came the less than perfect – to say the very least – snap presidential election in January and parliamentary election in May.

So what? Why should the West stop its love affair with Saakashvili?

Nothing that Saakashvili has done in the distant or recent past negates his attractiveness to the world’s “defendants of democracy”: he’s pro-Western, pro-NATO, anti-Russia, anti-Putin, and, apparently, anti-Medvedev. Besides, he studied in the United States and speaks fluent English.

So, for as long as Saakashvili keeps being our man in Tbilisi, Georgia will continue shining as a “beacon of liberty.”

Only those unable to grasp the complexity of the post-Soviet realities could claim that the results of the Georgian election represent a “defeat” to Russia. In fact, Moscow has no problem whatsoever with Saakashvili being firmly in control. First, he’s an economic liberal, with Georgia’s economic policies being highly favorable to the interests of Russian business. For as long as Saakashvili keeps around Kakha Bendukidze, former Russian “oligarch” and currently the head of Georgia’s State Chancellery, the Kremlin would tolerate Saakashvili’s shenanigans in foreign policy. Second, Saakashvili’s chaotic domestic moves and hysteric statements abroad serve as the best deterrent to Georgia’s NATO membership.

In other words, being “our” man in Tbilisi has a dual meaning.

(In his own peculiar way, Mr. Kozlovsky is a sincere, if somewhat immature and delusional, young man. He calls himself a “pro-democracy advocate” and aspires to become Russia’s incarnation of Mahatma Gandhi and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mr. Kozlovsky’s problem, however, is that he lives in gulag. No, not that gulag that he claims ex-President Vladimir Putin has transformed Russia into. He lives in a mental gulag, the gulag that he built by and for himself.

In contrast to the Stalin gulag that had killed and imprisoned millions of innocent people, Mr. Kozlovsky’s gulag is a lonely place (see picture on the right). It’s only populated by Mr. Kozlovsky himself and a bunch of “omonovtsy” (OMON is the Russian riot police). Apparently, the omnipresent K.G.B. agents are out there too, hiding behind the OMON lines. Oh sure, there is always a cameraman snapping pictures for Western media outlets.)

Then, something has caught my attention. Here it was:

“As you read this, I am in prison in Russia.”

Wait a minute. Is Mr. Kozlovsky saying that he wrote his WP piece when sitting in the pen? What the hell the prison is it where inmates can freely write opuses for foreign newspapers? Besides, I’m curious about the logistics of the writing process. Was Mr. Kozlovsky allowed to use a laptop in his cell or was he dragged in shackles to a desktop in the library or in the warden’s office? Does the prison have cable or wireless?

Whatever the case, the gulag that Mr. Kozlovsky built seems to have excellent Internet connection.

Mr. Kozlovsky’s real tragedy is that he isn’t a “leader of a youth movement” as he claims. He’s a pawn. A pitiful pawn at the hands of much older and much more cynical “pro-democracy advocates” who, in contrast to him, aren’t rushing to sacrifice their lives and freedom at the altar of “democratic Russia.”

Of course, I’m talking about Mr. Kozlovsky’s boss, the leader of Other Russia, Garry Kasparov, and the best buddy of the latter, the fuehrer of the banned National Bolshevik Party, Edward Limonov.

While Mr. Kozlovsky was struggling to break into the annals of the American journalism, Kasparov and Limonov were having good time in a plush Moscow hotel holding the first meeting of the so-called “National Assembly.” Composed of about 700 “deputies” (who have “elected” themselves by the rules established by themselves), the “National Assembly” is supposed to become, in the inflamed minds of Kasparov and Limonov, an “alternative parliament.”

My first reaction was like, a parliament of which country? Obviously, not Russia, for Russia already has a parliament.

But then, it came to me: it’s a parliament for the gulag that Oleg Kozlovsky built.

Accidentally or not, the news on Medvedev’s diplomatic activities have coincided with the release of a public opinion poll — conducted by VTSIOM — asking the Russians about their foreign policy priorities.

According to the poll, 28 percent of the respondents wanted Medvedev to focus on improvement of Russia’s relations with its neighbors in the post-Soviet space. 17 percent advocated Russia’s integration into Europe and another 17 percent argued for closer cooperation with the world’s growing economic powers: China and India. Only 9 percent of Russians believed that the country should strive for the “strategic partnership” with the United States.

It is truly remarkable how Medvedev’s foreign priorities mirror those of the ordinary Russians. I suspect it’s only a matter of time that Medvedev’s critics will accuse him in “rigging” the results of the poll to justify his plans.

Although Medvedev and President Bush are going to meet in July at the G8 summit in Japan, any productive interaction between the two is highly unlikely. Mindful of Bush’s lame-duck status, Medvedev has no reason to waste his time on forging a meaningful relationship with an outgoing American president.

By the time a new inhabitant is sworn into the Oval Office, Medvedev will have spent 9 months establishing working relationships with world leaders. Attempts by the next American president to “isolate” Medvedev will fail. Instead, he may well find himself as standing last in line to peek into Medvedev’s soul.