Home	The "Pokrovsky Questions" Discussion (final update 07 March 1999)

I recently received the initial message below from Nikita Pokrovsky of Moscow State University. He agreed (second message) that I could share it so that he might also receive responses from others. My reply to Prof. Pokrovsky is the third message.

I have posted this exchange to several discussion groups and to my own mailing list, inviting people to respond directly to Prof. Pokrovsky and to send a copy of their responses to me.

From: "Nikita Pokrovsky" <nikita@theo.soc.msu.su>
To: efenster@igc.org
Subject: On your recent announcement
Date sent: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 11:12:22 +0300

Dear Dr. Fenster,

Over the last few years I have been a recipient and reader, too, of your announcements. I don't know when and how I got on your mailing list but I never regretted about that and really enjoyed reading your information, especially your final reports on your trips in Russia. I always find them to be quite congenial. In the meantime, I am much puzzled with the dynamics of the number of participants on your program. It seems to me that this year (more than before) you are really struggling for keeping the program running. Why is it so, in your opinion? Does it meant that Russia is no longer on the map of American public? Or perhaps newspaper reports on crime in Russia have turned away many potential participants? Being myself a sociologist, journalist, and professor I am very much interested in learning more about the current situation in Russian and American cross-cultural relations. Believe me, these questions are meaningful for me. I assume the present moment may not be the best time for you to get into a discussion with me. However, whenever you have a spare minute I would appreciate hearing from you at your convenience.
With best wishes, Nikita Pokrovsky Discussion Top

From: "Nikita Pokrovsky" <nikita@theo.soc.msu.su>
To: <efenster@igc.org>
Subject: On Russia and US
Date sent: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:03:40 +0300

Please feel free to share my questions with your audience at your convenience. As a professor of sociology, I definitely can see a tendency of the public opinion in the US--from an absolutely uncritical admiration of everything Russian in the early 90s to an equally negative evaluation of almost everything Russian in the end of the 90s. I assume it may become a subject for an open and productive discussion among those who well know both our countries. Discussion Top

Fenster to Pokrovsky, 26 February 1999

Dear Prof. Pokrovsky,

Here are my own thoughts on your questions, primarily as they relate to American participation (the course are open internationally), and I hope you also receive comments from others.

My situation is particular because I organize the Moscow courses as an independent educator, but I am not alone in having difficulty to find people who wish to come and learn about Russia's situation. A number of universities, even those with long-standing programs, face the same problem and some have had to cease their efforts. There seem to be several reasons:

1) Less interest, in general, by Americans in international affairs. I will come back to this.
2) Loss of interest in Russia because it is no longer perceived as a threat that can be diminished by "person-to-person diplomacy."
3) A perception by those who do not already know the country that their stay in Russia will be a dreary and uncomfortable experience in present conditions, hardly a pleasant way to spend one's time (especially if vacation time must be used in order to go).
4) Impressions of criminality, gained from the media, that are not correlated with the statistically greater dangers in the USA and that don't take into account which populations in Russia are victims of crime.

Returning to the first point, my impression is of a growing gap between a surge of interest in the rest of the world among several million Americans who see new business opportunities or who discover international tourism and a much larger group who have turned inward for any number of reasons, including lack of a credible external threat and perceived self-sufficiency (economic, cultural, etc.).

Here is some brief anecdotal information to consider:

1) Time Magazine has reported that whenever one of its weekly issues has an international story on the cover page, sales at newsstands drop dramatically.
2) Although Americans get much of their news from television and most international stories are presented on national network news programs, there are major markets (eg, San Francisco) where the network news is scheduled for broadcast at 6 pm. At 6 pm in the San Francisco Bay Area, many (most?) people are still stuck in homeward-bound traffic jams! In any case, there's virtually no international news reporting left on the network programs, absent a crisis.
3) While many universities have successful study abroad programs, I have been told that interest has shifted to English-speaking countries because they require less effort. (I hope people who administer study abroad courses will reply to you and help clarify this.)
4) Except for a few British productions shown on public (non-commercial) stations, American television networks never broadcast foreign-made films or programs (some is available via cable), and the buyers of programs for even the public stations report there is no interest in acquisition of foreign productions. The contrast with European and other television, which have huge acquisitions of American productions, is dramatic. Foreign cinema is rarely distributed in the USA, especially outside a few major cities. Now there is a new trend of completely remaking, in English and with American casts, foreign films that show commercial success. These are distributed instead of the original.
5) Teachers have traditionally used summer holidays for travel for professional development, but I have never been able to gather a teachers group to go to Russia. Once I posted a message to a teachers' discussion group to ask for reactions about the apparent lack or loss of international interest. There were more than 1,000 people on the list, but only two replied, and that was to tell me that things were even worse than I imagined in terms of the turning inward. That's not a scientific sample, but to the extent is is true it is bad news for our children.

I hope this is helpful.
Best regards,
Eric Fenster Discussion Top 

There is a perception growing among both US elites and ordinary Americans that democracy in Russia is a lost cause. To a certain extent, this is a self- fulfilling prophecy. As long as Americans don't think democracy will succeed in Russia, they are not likely to support such ongoing Russian initiatives as obtaining relief from IMF strictures, and this tends to strength the position of hard liners in Russia. Most Americans don't consider it their responsibility to bail out the Russian economy, and the economic incentives for engagement with Russia are relatively low. The Russian government itself has not succeeded in overcoming its image problem, and Primakov looks like an old line Communist, smells like an old line Communist, and in many respects actually is an old line Communist.

That is not all. Americans are increasingly oblivious to the actions their very own government is taking around the world. NATO expansion passed Congress with almost no debate, and if the US does succeed in getting a peacekeeping force into Kosovo, it will have been done without any real discussion as to the deeper implications of that action, or the precedents being set by subverting Serbian sovereignty over this province (I hasten to add that I am hardly an admirer of Milosevic, and would just as soon bomb his army into the stone age as allow it to continue to kill innocent women and children with impunity, but it does not follow that the United States should be advocating an Kosovar autonomy, much less allow it to break away from Serbia.). The US is bombing Iraq daily with virtually no notice in the US press, and very muted attention in the Middle Eastern press as well.

Just to point out a sociological issue for Dr. Pokrovsky's attention, I will point out that one of the reasons that Russia has maintained a certain psychological remoteness is the intense resistance of many in Russia towards foreign influences. Both Communists and Russian Orthodox nationalists alike have teamed up to ensure that alien religious sects and cultures not be permitted to penetrate Russian territory. It is unreasonable to expect Russia to become as open and liberal a society as the United States overnight, but the perception in America is that the Russians are not even trying to open up their society or to modernize their culture. And American culture is much too self-possessed to try to meet Russia half way. Discussion Top 

Dear Profs. Pokrovsky and Fenster:

I read your correspondence with interest. Although our organization (the American Institute of Business and Economics) does not depend on students visiting from America, since almost all of our students are Russian, I think that after working in Moscow since 1990, I am in a position to observe some of the changing attitudes of Americans toward Russia, and in particular, some of the changing factors that make Americans less interested in visiting Russia as tourists or short-term students.

I should add that these trends are not recent. From 1989 through 1992, my wife and I were involved in recruiting and leading groups of teenagers on special interest tours of Russia (some church related, some related to horseback riding). In 1989 and 1990, opportunities for participation in this kind of group drew many applicants for every available space. Already by 1992, it was almost impossible to find even a few people interested in participating. So in some regards, the trend has been downward for a long time.

I agree that Prof. Fenster identifies two very important, concrete factors that contribute. One is the general insularity of Americans, their lack of exposure to foreign cultures, a falling interest in studying foreign (especially European) languages, and so on. Another is the widespread misperception of crime in Russia. To the average American, "crime" means being afraid to walk along a street at night, or even in the day, out of fear someone armed with a gun will rob you or rape you. On visits to America, we have been asked time and again by friends whether we are not afraid of living in Moscow because of the crime. We try to explain that while the dangers of being murdered are much higher in Russia than in America if you are a banker, they are significantly lower for the person walking along the street in Moscow compared with, say, South East Washington, DC. But few people understand how this can be.

There is also the factor that by now, many Americans have visited Russia and have reported that it is not especially attractive as a tourist destination. There is still a huge lack of good quality, budget-priced hotels and restaurants, it is less easy for a non-Russian speaker to find his way around Moscow unescorted than, say, in Paris, and the probability of encountering small-scale rudeness or dishonesty among people whose business is serving tourists is still high in Russia. There have been major improvements for wealthy tourists who can stay in 5-star hotels, and it is possible to have a good experience with a group, but for middle-class, budget travelers who like to explore a country on their own, Russia simply cannot be recommended.

There are other factors as well that Prof. Fenster did not discuss that enter into American perceptions of Russia and eagerness to travel here. Let me try to describe some of these and some things that I think have changed.

In 1990, Americans were drawn to Russia by two perceptions that were almost opposites. On the one hand, they were curious to see the "exotica" of the Soviet Union: A strange, totalitarian country with empty stores, lots of soldiers on the street, no advertising signs but many huge red banners saying "forward to victory of the Leninist idea!" and so on. In this way, the fact that Russia was on the most superficial level strange and different made it interesting to visit. On the other hand, during this period there was also the perception that "ordinary" Russians were people "just like us" who were just waiting for the chance to join up with the Western world and its cultural, democratic, and economic ways of life. In fact, in person-to-person meetings, many American visitors were told exactly these things by their new Russian friends. In part because of this, Americans were also made to feel admired and important, and it was easy to make new friends among Russians because often you were the first American the Russian had ever met.

Today the situation has changed. First, Russia is not superficially so strange, especially not in the "interesting" ways. Russian stores now look just like Western stores, while the exotic red banners are gone and now there is only the Marlboro man just like in any city in the world. The differences that remain (rude hotel clerks, dirty public toilets) are not stimulating and exciting like the old differences were.

On the other hand, the myth that Russians are "just like us" or want to join the Western world has also been weakened. If Americans read the news about Russia at all any more, they read things that emphasize uncomfortable differences between the way Russians and Americans view the world.

For example, if they read foreign policy news, they learn that Russia sees itself as the natural ally of nations that America views with fear: Countries like Iraq, Iran, and Serbia, for example. If they are among the many Americans who are dedicated to environmental causes, they read that Russians have great indifference to the natural environment, that they throw defenders of the environment like Nikitin and Pasko in jail as spies instead of treating them as heroes, that when there is a big spill of paper mill waste near Lake Ladoga, they say, why clean it up, just wait for it to melt, it's a big lake, it's not our responsibility, who cares. If the Americans are among those who are devoted Christians, they learn that in contrast to the diversity and tolerance characteristic of American religious life, Russian law says that traditional religions should dominate and that "unusual" American religions like Jehovah's witnesses should be outlawed. I should add that probably most Americans also view Jehovah's Witnesses as being somewhat unusual, but they react with horror when they learn that Russians think it is normal to use the force of law against such a group. If the Americans have sometime served in the military, they either remember their service with pride or they remember the harsh discipline and order of military life with resentment, but in either case, they are puzzled when they read that common soldiers in Russia serve under conditions where they cannot take pride in their service, but at the same time, instead of rigid discipline and harsh training, they are subject to lawlessness, drunkenness, hazing, and general lack of discipline.

At the same time that Americans find there are ways in which Russians are not "just like us," they also no longer find that they themselves are the object of automatic admiration just for being American, because Russians have found that after all, they do not like everything about America, and that among Americans, once you meet many of them, you find that some are boring, some are egotistical, some are culturally insensitive, and so on. No longer being treated as a special guest from another planet takes away a part of the thrill of visiting Russia that was always there in the Cold War.

Remember, I am trying to represent the view of casual, one-time American visitors to Russia. My own views, and those, I think, of most of the American teachers at our school who have lived and worked here for years are somewhat different. Although we are often angered and saddened by certain aspects of Russian reality, we still have great respect for the abilities and dedication of our students, and many of us find that our students are better than the average of those we have taught in American universities in the past, so that the teaching experience is very rewarding. Although not all Russian students would want to study at an American school, there are enough who do to keep our school full. Our students are not naive admirers of everything American, and we often have sharp discussions with them on issues like business ethics or foreign policy or social policy, where American and Russian attitudes differ. However, these discussions take place in the context of a long-term Russian-American, teacher-student relationship that is seen by both sides as yielding mutual benefits and an increase in mutual understanding.

Deep down, though, despite the success of our small enterprise here, I must say that I am personally saddened that Russia has turned away from the West, turned away from the idea of a society based on law to one based on power and deceit, and has shown itself not to be a country in which the strong care about the weak, but in which the strong care only for getting more at the expense of the weak. Secretly I still hope that Russia will someday, in these ways, become a "normal" country and join the part of the world in which countries as different as, say, America and France can enjoy their cultural differences while sharing basic democratic values.

Yours truly, Edwin G. Dolan, President American Institute of Business and Economics www.knight-hub.com/aibec Discussion Top 

Dear Dr. Fenster,

I am really enjoying our discussion which I did not either plan or even anticipate. Your evaluation of the current image of Russian in the public opinion in the US looks very convincing to me and I inclined to think it is quite close to the reality. I also started to receive messages in response to our dialogue from the participants of your discussion list. I believe it is an invaluable source of information for people like myself who have spent ages in studying, teaching, and writing about Russian and America. Do you think I can use some of the materials of our discussion as a source for my publications?

On my part, I should make a rather risky statement. In my opinion, the prevailing tendency of the public opinion in Russia towards the US can be expressed in a motto: LEAVE US ALONE, WE DON'T NEED EITHER YOUR HISTORIC WISDOM OR YOUR MONEY. This is an unhappy statement but we have to deal with the reality as it is.

In addition, I have a personal question to ask you all. In the beginning of the 90s I was actively lecturing in enlightened and often big audiences in North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, Minneapolis, Vermont, Greenwich, CN, and other places. At that time my main point was to warn the American public of the difficulties and threats of uncritical belief in the pro-Gorbachev, pro-democratic, and pro-American reforming of Russia. Needless to say I received no positive response to my public addresses and all my prophecies and many publications were, in fact, in vain. So, now we have what we have and my early "prophecies" have become a trivial fact. The question is, "Where have you, people, been then?" Discussion Top

My name is Leif Mogensen - I am Danish - Living since 1991 (end) in Republic of Lithuania.

I have some comments about the not only American missing or "vanishing" interest for Russia.

The Baltic States was in the beginning of freedom , very heavily promoted and supported by Scandinavia , not only Denmark but all Scandinavia . This has changed as well as the support for Russia. I have been involved in many projects cross Scandinavia - Russia /The Baltics. Business - Social or relations in general. It is general for the last 3 years that the initial very high interest in peoples life in general in above areas has changed. This is valid both for business and socially. Initially everybody wanted to help - to do something in order to get a better living for EAST Europeans, also the start promised very fast growing business with Russia and the Baltics. The mistakes done by West Europeans is very classical - They have no idea about what really has been changed mentally and socially due to many years of Communism. The head in general , in a social way, works differently for Russians/Baltic people than West Europe. Business rules - social unwritten rules - standard habits in social relations are miles away from what West Europe has. Then there is the syndrome of NOT speaking straight , which all East Europeans have! You will not in same way get a person's straight opinion from his heart , he will always keep some reservations, will not tell everything . This is natural due to the "training" during Communist times. Conflicts or discussion situations where it is needed to solve a problem , is talked to death. East Europeans are for the most people not able to go straight into a discussion of different opinions and make their point clear. They try to pass the problem , go around it , and possible use intrigues to get what they want. They Have NO history of problem-solving - they never learned as the system was controlling this, and to put your head forward and speak straight was a direct way to end up in personal problems.

The business relations also have changed. All West European companies, US too, were running to Russia and the Baltics to make business, they forgot to make their homework , to learn about cultural differences , social differences, common behavior in the former USSR. For many companies business ended up in conflict situations. US and Europe Companies have lost money and investments. after which they change their attitude to be negative. They do not understand that what can be made in Europe or US in a week can take a Year in Former USSR.

I very clearly can feel the differences, as people in Denmark or other European countries now when I speak with them about social-cultural or business relations to The Baltics or Bielorussia are saying (some of them), Leif you are not Danish anymore, go home to your East Europe, we are fed up with missing supplies, bad quality, transport problems and the social side. We are fed up with human help which shows up to disappear, be commercialised , help for kindergarten , which are selling half of what they receive. We are not interested in helping as the help goes in the wrong hands, our investments are lost due to mafia conflicts payments of corrupt politicians, etc., etc.

Also , what people in Europe in general see is the "New Rich" Russians/Baltic people who do not understand how to behave in Europe without putting a spotlight on themselves. It is difficult to talk with people about the social needs in Russia when they yesterday had a customer who was buying for hundreds of thousands of dollars, cars, house, clothes, etc.

What people in Europe see is NOT the common standard Russian or Baltic person , BUT all the Business people for whom money is not any problem

Also Moscow is NOT Russia - but Europe and US do not know this!

There is no difference from Russia to The Baltics in this way, visitors come, live in first class very expensive hotels, eat in special restaurants, are only shown by their partners what the partner want them to see. All former USSR business people are very afraid of giving all information, as information is POWER.

The problem is much much more complex than the surface shows!

If anybody on the list is interested in hearing more about East Europe seen from a Dane's point of view who actual live here, have his family here, please I'll be delighted to have a forum to tell about my experience here.

Leif Mogensen Vilnius - Rep. of Lithuania nolle@takas.lt. Discussion top

From: Neil McGowan <neilmcg@lycosmail.com>
Date sent: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:44:6 +0000

Uvajeimy Professor Pokrovsky!

I'm writing in relation to your correspondence with Eric Fenster, which has, with your permission, been reproduced on CompuServe's "Travel" Forum. I'll write in English - since this reply will be copied there too.

I should explain my involvement. I run a Travel Company in London UK, specialising in travel to Russia - we also offer some programs in Central Asia, Caucasus; and in Mongolia. Our trips are designed for maximum cultural immersion; clients travel as individuals (not in groups), stay with Russian families, are hosted and shown around by hand-picked friendly local Russian people in each place (no "State Guides"!). We especially promote travel beyond Moscow & Petersburg, into the country's interior - Ekaterinburg, Novosibirsk, Irkutsk, Ulan-Ude, Vladivostok, plus the "Golden Ring", Novgorod, Pskov etc. Our trips are "study visits" explicitly, but the three most important elements in them are (i) direct contact with Russian people from all walks of life, from avant-garde artists in St Petersburg to villagers living in log- cabins in Siberia (ii) the "high culture" of Russia's heritage (museums, concerts, art, ballet, literature, opera etc.) and (iii) the "unwritten" culture of Russia - walking in forests, mushroom picking, banya: but also visiting Siberian shamans; seeing Buddhist Temples in Buryatia; visiting nomads in Tuva; white-water rafting in Altai Mountains.

Mine is a European perspective, to contrast with Eric's; although we have clients from all over the world on our trips.

I broadly agree with what Eric has written; and it would be presumptuous of me to write "second-hand" about American views on Russia. The only disagreement I have with Eric, is that he possibly paints a too positive picture of how things are in Europe, as compared with USA. Although our TV News seems to feature more news and analysis of foreign stories, it is still largely confined to stories in which the UK has direct involvement - either Britons caught up in the story, or business, government aid programs etc. For a foreign story to make the headlines without direct impact on Britain or its citizens, that story must be especially horrific - I am thinking of the Tutsi massacres, or Kosovo.

I mention this, because my Company is sometimes approached (let's say 10-12 times in the last month?) about travel to absolutely the most dangerous places, by people who have no idea whatsoever of the dangers. For example, of those 10-12 times, we had around 8 people wanting to try to cross the Georgian-Russian border and then go through Chechnya, Ingushetia or Dagestan, en route to Russia. They did not KNOW it was Chechnya - they just pointed vaguely at a map. One even wanted to cross from South Ossetia to North Ossetia. These events have NO coverage on our TV at all. The BBC is well aware of them, I have a personal friend who works there monitoring news from all parts of the ex-USSR. But not worth broadcasting, it seems.

But, let us keep these things in perspective - their knowledge of other places is equally hazy sometimes. We have the potential to send people onwards from Vladivostok to Pyongyang, if they really want to go. We say "no" to anyone who asks the question "Is there a train to Seoul from Pyongyang? Or should we hitch-hike?" (Seriously, clients ask this question.)

There is the extreme irony, of course, that whilst willing to walk into battle zones (Abkhazia too, for example), many of our clients are very concerned about the danger of violence or crime in Moscow or St Petersburg. Of course, statistically, it is more dangerous to go for a walk in Naples, New York or Manchester. However, people will believe what they wish to believe. The problem is made worse by self-appointed "experts" who retail complete rubbish on this topic. The wizop (senior administrator) of another Forum on CompuServe stated categorically - in reply to a question - that random violence was normal in Moscow, that all foreigners had armed bodyguards, and that the city should be avoided by travelers. Of course, this (American) gentleman has never been to Moscow, nor has he any informed sources for his information. But there are many people in life who enjoy a reputation for being "informed", and for parading their "knowledge" in public.

Part of the problem, I feel, is that all media need buyers of their stories, and there is no story easier to sell, than one which confirms the biases of the readers, viewers or listeners. Tell them they are right, and they thankfully buy your newspaper. Tell them they were wrong - they buy a rival newspaper. I wonder when the world is going to wake up to the idea that they were wrong about Chechnya? So far we've seen an Islamic Govt declared, Koranic Law introduced, and the offer to provide asylum for Osama Bin-Laden. Still, the West is looking for the "Russian Bear", because that's "THE STORY", of course <SIGH>.

Definitely, Eric Fenster is right to say that expectations of comfort levels in Russia are extremely low. Further, people still believe they will be followed, monitored, or worse in Russia. We regularly have clients reporting a "microphone" (the fire hydrant system) on the ceiling of their room. (In fact, the hotel in question is privately owned and would wish to have as little to do with the Security Services as possible!). They also continue to believe that the shops are empty, and they must take all their food with them for the entire journey!! We tell them to go and have a look at Bagrationovskaya....

Finally, the biggest misconception, is about Russian people themselves. Westerners still continue to believe that life in the USSR period was something like in Orwell's "1984", and that every aspect of personal life was edited and controlled by the State. Recently, one of my Russian staff from Moscow was talking to some potential visitors to Russia, here in London. She was describing summer holidays at Sochi in the 1980's, and discos, and beach parties, music... and sex. Someone actually asked if sex had been allowed in an unregulated way during the USSR??? <!!> The image is of unceasing labour, without smiles, without fun, without family life, or pleasure of any kind. And especially, of cultural isolation?? There is a widespread idea that the only books available were Lenin's, or Ostrovsky`s (I mean "How the Steel was tempered", not "The Storm" of course!) As you well know, the reality is quite the opposite. I find myself continuously embarrassed when my Russian friends ask me if I haven't read Jung, or Castaneda, or Marquez, or Wegener.

Despite all this!! The numbers of clients my Company sends to Russia increases with each year, and I am pleased to say that the variety and depth of the itineraries they choose also increases. Six years ago, we had difficulty persuading people to break their Trans-Siberian journey in Irkutsk. Now, it is their first priority when asking about such trips.

But all this is against a background of falling visitor numbers to Russia. Preconceptions based on faulty, or absent information are certainly part of the reason.

However, will you allow me - after being so complimentary about Russia and its people - to now make some serious criticisms? As a professional in the Travel industry, I cannot help but compare in my mind the circumstances for visiting Russia, compared with other places in which people might spend their vacation time, and their holiday dollar. If Russia seriously wishes to compete on a world market, it must conform to world standards.

i) the VISA regulations are absurd, and in desperate need of reform. They have not changed since the 19thC, with the only exception, that it is no longer needed to print notice of ones intended departure from Russia in the St Petersburg Gazette for three weeks prior to leaving. Under present regulations, for example, one cannot combine a stay in two cities independently - one must have an Invitation from either one, or the other - but to submit two Invitations, one from each city, is forbidden! Although I should say that Consular Staff are, these days, extremely helpful, they are placed in an impossible position by regulations nearly TWO CENTURIES out of date.

Yes, diplomats say "ah, but will <name any country> give Russians the same rights in exchange?" No, of course not, is the answer. But does Russia want tourist income or not?? Prior to the break-up, communist Yugoslavia freely gave visas to all visitors, even though Yugoslavs found it highly difficult to obtain reciprocal visas. They recognised the need to develop tourism as an industry.

Which leads me to my next point....

ii) there is absolutely NO interest in developing the Visitor industry at Governmental level. NONE. No Minister responsible. Not only no dedicated Ministry, but no organisation, no promotion, no responsibility at all. The only responsible organisation is OVIR, responsible for issuing Visas.

Compare this with any country serious about wanting to attract visitors?? In London, I can research my holiday to Italy at the Italian State Tourist Office. No, they do not SELL holidays. They provide maps, and guides, and brochures of travel companies in Italy, hotels in Italy, everything to help visitors plan a successful trip. And for Austria, there is a Visitor Centre. Finland has a Tourist Centre. Bulgaria and Romania have similar facilities. But Russia?? Tfu!

iii) Russia has also made it absolutely as difficult as possible for Western airlines to get landing rights in Russia. Compare it to America, a country of similar size?? From London, I can fly to New York, DC, Philadelphia, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Orlando, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle.... and... and...

But to Russia? Moscow. Or St Petersburg but only 4 times per week. Once per week to Ekaterinburg. That's all. And on so few airlines that there is no competition, so fares to MOSCOW are HIGHER than to NEW YORK!!!

And when you arrive in Moscow, hotel prices the highest in the WORLD!!! (Statistically true. For each "international chain hotel" in Moscow, their Moscow hotel is the most expensive in their company throughout the world, including Scandinavia and even Tokyo.)

So imagine yourself in London. You can take a holiday in New York, paying around GBP190 for a ticket on a good airline and GBP100 for a good hotel room. Or to Moscow, paying around GBP260 for a ticket on - well, you know which airline - and about GBP160 for an ordinary hotel room. To America, you can go tomorrow. To Russia, in about 2-3 weeks once you stood outside the Russian Consulate in the rain a few times to get a visa.

Is the situation becoming clearer? And of course, Europe's great cultural cities like Prague, Rome, Barcelona, Berlin are all easier and cheaper than New York to reach.

A taxi from NYC Newark airport to my hotel is $25, fixed by the City Authorities. How much from Sheremetyevo to Tverskaya? At least $60, if you negotiate hard, in Russian. For naive newcomers, maybe $100 or higher.

iv) Well, at National level, as we said, Russia doesn't care at all about visitors, no effort made, no investment in time or resources, so no wonder more UK tourists go each year to Bulgaria, than Russia.

At local level? Moscow City started a Tourism Advice service, and this is a start, although the advice seems rather biased towards some special hotels and companies only. But, at least they did something.

In St Petersburg, what did Yakovlev do? He announced a "Tourist Police", with special red berets. "You can ask them any question, and they will help you" he said. And what is written on the backs of their jackets?

O M O N

What a nice welcome to the city of Tsar Peter!!! :-((

Ekaterinburg has a one-man Tourist Office run out of enthusiasm by Konstantin Brylyakov. Otherwise, no help.

The wonderful region of Kamchatka, that natural paradise which should have thousands of visitors, is under Police Control, and to visit anything, you need to apply for documents months in advance, and wait. It helps to "approach them personally on the matter" :-( _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

So, this is how it is. By providing our own solutions to these problems, we attract some visitors to Russia. With the slightest help from our destination itself, we could do a lot more.

But I think you can see, that there are really some substantial reasons why more people do not visit. They are not only moral or safety concerns, but also very practical reasons.

For my support for Russia and Russian Tourism, I've been attacked on CompuServe as a "communist", and for "using Stalinist methods to zombify your staff whilst paying them peanuts and enslaving them". The sad thing is that attitudes to Russia are so entrenched, that is THOUGHT TO BE OK to make these kind of remarks to anyone who is involved in promoting Russia as a place to visit. Meantime, however, I and my Company carry on doing not only the work of organising travel, our legitimate work - but also doing all the work of a Tourist Information Centre, and Ministry of Tourism, which is accepted to be a national responsibility in any other country. Luckily, we have the help of some great and professional people in Russia to assist us in our work, but without their personal enthusiasm to promote their country, it would be harder still.

For those who do finally get there of course - it's a wonderful experience!!

S teplym privetom iz ne-tummanogo Londona!!

Neil McGowan
http://www.trans-siberian.co.uk/mysite Discussion top

Nikita:

What follows is a spontaneous, stream-of-consciousness response to your inquiry, prefaced by a little philosophy intended to serve as an introduction to who I am and what I am doing.

Spare minutes are hard to come by for university professors -- you seem to know that and are sensitive to time as a scarce resource. What is most interesting to be about time is that I can't think of any other resource which everyone possesses in an equal amount -- each of us is allotted 24 hours in each day; it is the way we invest those 24 hours that makes us different.

I remember when I used to resent not having enough time to do everything that I felt I had to do or that I wanted to do. At some point, I realized that what I felt I had to do was a consequence of choices I had made earlier (so I was responsible for how I handled those consequences) and those things I want to do are also choices I make (and I am responsible for how I handle the consequences of those choices). I consider myself very fortunate because I can't remember the last time I was bored -- my life has provided me with sufficient challenges so I don't have time to be bored, and my approach to life has been to pursue those challenges spontaneously and reflectively as opportunities for continuing personal and professional growth.

So, for me, life is an ongoing experiment which, upon reflection, I would describe as follows: (1) I recognize a challenge/opportunity as competing with other challenges/opportunities to which I am attempting to respond and therefore as a dilemma to be resolved; (2) I place it with the other challenges upon which I am working; (3) I review and, if warranted, reorganize my priorities so that I am working on (a) resolving the challenge which can be addressed most expediently, (b) the challenge with the most significant long-term payoff; [In this way, I don't allow mundane and/or immediate tasks to consume all of my time; (4) I monitor my progress; and (5) I evaluate the results in terms of personal and professional growth for myself and others involved.

Perhaps an example will provide clarification.

I am in my twenty-second year as a professor of education at Idaho State University in Pocatello, Idaho, USA, where I teach courses in philosophy of education and methods of teaching the social sciences. Our College of Education is in the midst of a major curriculum reform endeavor, so we have no shortage of faculty meetings and task force meetings. Next week (beginning Monday, 1 March) is the middle of our semester. In addition to the major responsibilities of teaching, research, and service, unanticipated crises/opportunities have a way of providing "opportunities" that would challenge even the most organized individual.

I am in the midst of evaluating lessons and projects from my students and creating exams for them so that I can provide them with feedback on their progress thus far this semester. I have email contact with each of my 150 students and they keep me informed of their learning on a weekly basis. In addition I maintain email contact with my colleagues and friends around the world. At this moment, the most immediate task I face is evaluating lessons submitted by the 45 students in my social science methods classes so that they will have the results no later than Monday, 1 March.

At the same time, I am working on a long range project which is paving the way for two graduate students from Chelyabinsk to study at Idaho State University during the 1999/2000 academic year. On 11 January this year, I returned from my fourth trip to Russia. My first trip was in August 1994 as a prelude to what became a two year sabbatical in the Urals Region (95-97). I have returned twice since my sabbatical, both times to spend my winter holidays there and to continue my work with Russian professors, teachers, and students of English.

So yesterday, when I read Eric Fenster's email message and your letter, I decided to reorganize my priorities so that I could respond to your questions. Let me quote that portion of your letter here so that your questions are immediately evident. You wrote:

“In the meantime, I am much puzzled with the dynamics of the number of participants in your program. It seems to me that this year (more than before) you are really struggling to keep the program running. Why is it so, in your opinion? Does it mean that Russia is no longer on the map of the American public? Or perhaps newspaper reports on crime in Russia have turned away many potential participants?”

First, I would like to respond as an individual with some experience, then, for whatever it is worth, speculate by providing possible generalizations which might be examined further.

With response to your inquiry (and permit me to paraphrase here): “Why is it such a struggle to keep the program running?”

I, too, have been monitoring Dr. Fenster's requests for participants in his program. Why didn't I respond to his September and October 1998 inquiries? For several reasons (and I’ll try to list these in some order of priority):

(1) I was already involved in an exchange program; (2) my plans for the 1998/99 academic year and summer had already been made; and (3) the changing economic situation in Russia seemed too unpredictable for such a long range commitment.

As a way of a rationale for my first response, as I indicated above, I am already involved in and committed to my work in the Urals Region. [Since you indicated that you enjoy reading Dr. Fenster's reports, I've attached as email files some of my own reports. These provide background information on my interest in Russia and my work there.] I suspect that there are as many reasons as there are people who might speak individually to your inquiry. Generally, I would speculate that over the years and especially since 1991 there has been an increase rather than a decrease in the number of visitors to Russia as tourists, students, or on business. I believe there are more opportunities to visit Russia and that the number of those opportunities have increased faster than the interest of the (American) public or the ability of individuals to respond. The opportunities have a way of competing with each other.

With regard to my second reason, after my two years in Russia, I returned to my university more enthusiastic about our exchange program than ever; however, although there were many Russians who were ready to come to America at the drop of a hat, I've had great difficulty finding colleagues and/or students willing to reorganize their lives so that they could take advantage of travel to and/or work in Russia. I came to realize that, in general, we Americans prize our families, plans, and possessions above the unknown and it is only when promises of the unknown are sufficiently intriguing that we are willing to take the risk for adventure and adjust our plans accordingly. So, it may be more a matter of priorities than of interest.

Third, with regard to economic conditions, my most recent trip during the 1998/99 winter holidays was very timely. Last summer, as part of our exchange program, a colleague from Chelyabinsk was visiting ISU when the August economic crisis took place in Russia. We were very concerned about the immediate and long range situation there. As a sociologist, you are aware of the interaction of economic and social conditions. Although I might have made a commitment to be part of Dr. Fenster's Summer ‘99 program, the uncertainty of the financial situation and the ultimate cost to American participants was too uncertain. In view of the economic situation in December and January, I think the Summer ‘99 trip could have been a bargain for Americans, if it was handled appropriately.

I do have to comment that during my time in Russia, I have been treated like my Russian friends -- I have paid the same as they pay for lodging, meals, and travel. Even during the few times I have been in Moscow traveling with Russian friends, I paid the same as my friends to visit museums, the ballet, the theater, etc. I know, however, that whenever I have traveled abroad as part of an official tour, as tourists we have always been charged more than the natives of the country. When foreigners come to America, there is no economic discrimination -- they pay what we must pay for meals, lodging, and travel. This is an especially sensitive issue, particularly with educators, who are generally the lowest paid professionals in any country. Consequently, just because we are Americans doesn't mean that we are rich -- although we may appear to be better off than our colleagues in Russia. When we compare income to expenses -- the cost of living of an American professor and the cost of living of a Russian professor -- the difference is less than one might think.

Although I am aware of the reports in the American media about the economic, social, and political situation in Russia, I think Americans in general view that information with the same skepticism as media information in general. I travel quite extensively. I go to Washington, DC and New York on a regular basis. During our spring break the week of 7-13 March, I will be going to sunny Florida. Because I have been to those places often, I am not disturbed by media reports of violence and crime in those areas. Some Americans will not travel to those places because they are concerned for their safety, and many Russians ask me if I am not afraid to live in America with all the crime that takes place here. So, because I have been to Russia, the reports about crime there are understood in the same light. No one should take any chances whenever or wherever they travel; however, with reasonable precautions, risks to one's safety can be minimized.

In general, I believe the success of any program depends a great deal upon the personal connections of the individuals involved. Although I have participated in tours to China, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, etc., and although it was always more expensive than I would have liked, the lodging, food, travel, safety, convenience, etc. were worth the extra expense. I do not like tours because I do not like to live in hotels eat hotel food; but because my stay in those countries was short, it was OK. I now know where I would go for longer periods of time and I would rather live with a host in the country so that I could experience the culture at its fullest.

My work at Idaho State University in connection with our exchange project with institutions in the Urals Region at this point focuses primarily upon facilitating cultural exchanges between our countries in general and educators in particular. Although my work began with the exchange of ideas and information, particularly in the area of the teaching of English as a second language, it has expanded to include the exchange of professors, educational administrators, and students in the areas of English, social work, law, and dentistry. I have also focused on long-term exchanges which allow participants to live and work in the host country at no expense to the participants except their travel to and from the host country. For example, whenever I travel to Russia and during my two year stay in Russia, the only cost to me has been my travel to and from Chelyabinsk. Once there, I am paid for my work at a rate equivalent to a Russian professor of my rank and experience and I live accordingly. When Russian educators have come to America, they have been responsible for the cost of their own transportation. Their expenses while here have been covered by the host institution and individual sponsors.

Well, this “stream-of-consciousness” response has become more extensive than I had expected; however, it has helped me to clarify some of my own ideas and has strengthened my commitment to maintain communications with my Russian colleagues. I hope that you won't consider my response more than you wanted to know or otherwise inappropriate and that we can become friends. I would be interested in collaborating with you and Dr. Fenster as we continue to explore resolutions to our mutual concerns, one of which I perceive to be increasing personal and professional contact and understanding between Americans and Russians.

Spring will arrive here officially on 21 March; however, there are already signs here that she is on her way. It was about +14 C yesterday, but today they are calling for snow again. As I recall, it will be 1 April before winter leaves your area.

Again, I am sending four attached files. The first is an autobiographical sketch that places my interest in Russia within the context of my early life; the second is a journal of my departure from and first weeks in Russia during 1995 that provides some insight into my initial perceptions of living in a new culture; the third is an outline of my work in Russia from an economic perspective. ...

Thank you, Nikita, for this opportunity. I look forward to hearing from you at your convenience. As I indicated above, I will be working very hard next week and on spring break in Florida the following week, so if you do respond and you don't hear from me immediately, I will write back. Discussion top

I'd like to thank Eric for his insightful letter, and try to add something to the comments of Bill and Franco. I shamelessly volunteer my own thoughts, despite not being a Russia expert. Here goes.

Did anyone see the London Economist issue dated Feb 6th-12th 1999? It has on its cover (at least in USA) the headline "Russia, financial outcast." The cover illustration shows a bear, forlorn and disheveled, in an icy cave. Saint Basil's is visible in the distance outside the cave. A stove (a la samovar) puts out a small amount of heat, and tacked on the wall behind the bear is an icon of Madonna and Child, and a dart board with Yeltsin's picture on it and a few darts stuck in.

The bear wears old shoes and a castoff military cap. His fur (I'll assume it's a male bear) is patched in a few places with bits of old cloth, and he sports a bandaged arm and a few Band-Aids. He holds upended a large jar from which a few small drops of honey are trickling (the jar is labeled "honey" but has the "h" crossed out with an "m" inserted, changing "honey" to "money."

The bear sits on a castoff rocket with a radioactive hazard logo and its innards partly dislodged. Behind the rocket are several smaller missiles in similar disrepair. One might describe the bear's expression as dejected or mournful--and probably hungry. the bear's expression is woeful.
----
An earlier Economist cover, sometime in the last few years, showed the various European countries of the EU merrily uniting (perhaps they were animals with clothing in the colors of their flags). Russia was portrayed in the background as a vagrant bear, holding gently in one forepaw a dove with the olive branch of peace in its beak. With the other forepaw the bear rummaged through a garbage can.

If it is not already clear, I will state it explicitly: These cartoons strike a poignant note for me, because Russia's state seems rather sad. It seems somehow pathetic, and it hurts me that the Russian people may be left in some post-Soviet limbo, forgotten by most of the OECD countries. Here are a few random thoughts in no particular order.
------
It is my personal impression that some Americans have been fascinated by Russia for a long time (perhaps the trend started about 1900?), especially regarding Russian novels, movies, and history. I suspect this holds true especially of some subset of the intellectual classes, but it trickled down toward the mass of Americans during the Cold War.

At the same time, the mass interest was rather superficial--the sort of interest that put Joseph Stalin on the cover of Time as Time's "Man of the year" (was it in 1942?). But the intellectual interest somehow fertilized or leavened the mass sentiment. Some of the intellectual interest was from the intellectual hard or soft left because of Soviet Russia's identity as a "left" country--how much is hard to say. Likewise, it's tough to tell when that pattern began to fade.

* Perhaps Americans like winners, and they seek to dissociate themselves from a country with as tragic a 20th century history as Russia. All that suffering--for what? Why not be interested in something else? Why not be fascinated with Asia instead, because it is a land of economic miracles (or was seen that way until recently.)?

* There is probably some "compassion fatigue" operating--many Americans foolishly thought that the fall of the Soviet regime would usher in rapid political and economic progress. Now they despair because they had no idea how hard the task of development or reconstruction would be.

Americans may tend to take institutions for granted--they credit their own "founding fathers" for their political genius, without knowing much about the background of European institutions in law, business, technology, etc., developing since at least the high middle ages (if not dating back to Greece and Rome with shameless borrowing from the Arabs and countless others).

* If people don't know where they want to go, there are more appealing places than Russia. For one thing, it's seen as cold and dreary, and the USA is full of university students in places like Iowa or Ohio who are hoping to move to the sunbelt as soon as they can.

More generally, I am reminded of journalist Hedrick Smith's observation, at the end of his 1970s book , The Russians. He said that Russia is a non-Western country without obvious tourist exotica to signal that one has left home. There are no women in kimonos to be seen, no camels on the streets of Moscow or Minsk (yes, perhaps they were all killed and eaten in Sverdlovsk like that one wag warned Krushchev!). (In terms of being "non-Western," Smith was referring to Russia's historic isolation, having missed the main currents of the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment, and in that sense being somehow non-Western or semi-Asiatic).

* Thus, if someone wants exotica, why not go to Bali and sit in the sun instead? Why not go to Kenya to see wildlife? Why not at least go to someplace where they speak English? I believe the statistics show that a vast number of study abroad students prefer English speaking countries because the alternatives involve so much more linguistic frustration and work.

* It is probably significant that America has relatively few inhabitants of Russian descent, excepting Jews whose affinities / loyalties likely tend, after the USA, to flow more toward Israel than toward Russia. Thus, Americans who can tell you how bad the Nazi Holocaust was cannot name a single Russian gulag camp, despite the popularity in the USA of Solzenitsyn's work!

If people want vulgar popularizations of history, it is difficult to imagine how one might make a Schindler's List type of movie set in Russia. If a person's mind seeks simple explanations based on heroes and villains, it is tough to tell how to think of Russia at all. Americans may like their countries simple, with clear progress. The Burmas, Nigerias, Zaires, Sudans, Pakistans, Irans, Ethiopias, and Colombias are not for them. Give them cheery countries.

* Let me get back to this argument about domestic interest groups. Jewish Americans will champion Israel (or be appalled by its intransigence), Irish Americans will speak fondly of an island they have never been to, Armenian Americans will raise millions in a L.A. fundraising telethon to pave a roadway between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. African Americans will think of themselves as being in "the diaspora," and ask "Why can't Black Americans do for Africa what Jews have done for Israel?" (I refrain from commenting on the merits of this approach to US foreign policy or international development).

***** Americans are funny people. Who can figure us out? I'll end with an aphorism: "Americans like their movie villains to have foreign accents, but they refuse to watch movies with subtitles." Who said it? Maybe Lewis Lapham, editor of Harpers. Or Paul Krugman, economist at MIT. Jacques Barzun? historian John Lukacs? It would be in character for any of them, but it was probably Lewis Lapham.

Sincerely,
charles Discussion top

Dear Prof. Pokrovsky,

I am the international exchange coordinator for the Faculty of Business Administration at a Canadian university. Although extremely interested in Russia, in particular Russian language and folklore, I have been unable to avail of Dr. Fenster's program. I am happy to say that my reason has nothing to do with those listed by Dr. Fenster. It is simply based on the fact that I currently, and for the next two years, am unable to afford the time necessary to go. This is because I am currently working part-time toward my MBA so that, even during my vacation from work, I am required to remain home to continue my studies.

Unfortunately, I agree with Dr. Fenster's assessment below regarding the possible reasons for an apparent lack of interest. That is, there is little exposure in North America to international issues, television, etc. In my work as exchange coordinator, I have noticed a disturbing trend whereby students are generally more eager to apply for an exchange in an English-speaking country, because they are more "comfortable" with that. This is the case despite our efforts to convince them of the value of an exchange in an entirely different culture.

Through the efforts of yourself and Dr. Fenster, I hope that awareness of this "near-sightedness" on the part of many North Americans will be made clear, and that interest in international issues will be enhanced.

Keep up the good work! Discussion top

I was going to agree with Eric Fenster. It is tempting to thing that Americans have fallen into a fat-cat syndrome. Their place in the sun is so warm, the food they are given, so plentiful and tasty that they no longer feel like chasing mice particularly if it exposes them to any discomfort.

And the news coming out of Russia has been very bad. No, I am not talking about the political or the economical situation but about reports the unfriendliness of the locals, uninspiring or bad food, etc. Then there are many reports about the lawlessness of Russian cities, etc. All that can hardly inspire a fat cat. The country needs better P.R.

Then, in today's Chicago Tribune I read an article by Eileen Finan, a Peace Corps volunteer, relating her experience as a school teacher in Vladimir. Her article is full of warmth and understanding. (Read it at http://chicagotribune.com/splash/article/0,1051,SAV-9902280428,00.html)

This is a big country... not all cats are fat and many haven't lost their ability to marvel. Discussion top