Latest news with #MikhailGorbachev
Time Business News
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Time Business News
Why Listening to VOA in a Closet Saved a Family: Lessons from Alex Fink's Childhood in Soviet Moldova
In the USSR, access to uncensored news was strictly forbidden. For many, foreign radio broadcasts such as Voice of America (VOA) served as a vital connection to the outside world. Alex Fink , founder of the news platform OtherWeb, recalls how his family would secretly gather in a broom closet to listen to VOA broadcasts. For them, tuning in was not just about receiving information. It was an act of quiet defiance, a source of hope, and a reminder that freedom of thought still existed beyond the walls of repression. As the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, Moldova was one of the 15 republics that made up the Soviet Union. The central government in Moscow controlled nearly every aspect of life, including the economy, the media, and individual freedoms. Private enterprise was outlawed, and the state dictated what could be said, heard, or believed. Citizens were expected to follow the Communist Party's ideology without question, and dissent was met with severe consequences. In such an environment, access to unfiltered news was extremely limited. Foreign radio stations such as Voice of America (VOA) were officially banned, and those caught listening to them faced punishment. Yet for many, these broadcasts served as a crucial lifeline. They offered a rare and precious window into the world beyond the Iron Curtain, providing not only information but also a sense of connection, truth, and hope. For Alex Fink's family, the closet became a sanctuary where they could quietly listen to Voice of America without the constant fear of being discovered. Late at night, with the volume barely audible, they tuned in to news from the other side of the Iron Curtain. What they heard was more than just information. It brought a sense of solidarity and hope. Listening to VOA was an act of silent defiance. It was a way to claim the right to know, to think freely, and to hold on to their humanity in a system designed to take it away. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in the 1980s had introduced policies of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) in a bid to give the Soviet system a new lease of life. The reforms liberalized freedom of speech and curbed government intervention. But they also revealed the inherent flaws of the Soviet system and fueled ambitions for more freedom. For the vast majority of Moldovans, like Alex Fink, it was a time of upheaval and transformation. Increased freedom meant increased access to information and increased awareness of the world outside. But it meant political turmoil and economic hardship as the old order disintegrated. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Moldova underwent a dramatic transformation. The country gained independence, but the transition to a market economy was challenging. Economic hardship and political instability led many Moldovans to leave the country in search of work and a better life abroad. Alex Fink was among those who left, driven by the hope of building a freer and more secure future in America. Life was not easy, but it was fueled by a desire for opportunity and self-determination. His journey reflects the experience of many Moldovans who continue to seek a better life beyond their homeland. VOA's influence on Alex Fink's life shows the importance of an independent and unbiased media. Access to objective news in information-deprived societies is critical to informed decision-making and protecting the autonomy of individuals. Today, the issue of political interference in the media and media freedom remains a thorn in Moldova's side. All of this, despite the legacy of the people who lost everything so that they could have access to the truth, serves as a reminder of the value of freedom of the press in the long run. Alex Fink's testimony to having listened to VOA in a closet is a poignant tribute to the strength of the human spirit and the irrepressible human desire for freedom and truth. It is in remembrance of the immense difference that access to information can make to citizens of oppressive regimes and families. As we consider his testimony, we remember the role that a free press plays in democracy and human rights. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Daily Mirror
27-05-2025
- General
- Daily Mirror
Creepy ghost town suddenly abandoned now overrun with polar bears
Pyramiden, a town in the Arctic Circle that has stood empty of humans since 1998, is a living museum to Soviet life. Visit today and you will find cups left on the table, skiing equipment abandoned in the hallway and newspaper cuttings on the wall An eerie ghost town has been left exactly as it was when crews abandoned it 27 years ago. The Mary Celeste ship has been etched into the memories of school children for decades. The American merchant brigantine was discovered adrift and deserted in the Atlantic Ocean off the Azores on December 4, 1872, with food still on plates as if the crew was about to sit down to dinner. The mystery surrounding the abandoned ship has captivated people for over 150 years, leading to numerous theories about the fate of its crew. Far less well known is the story of Pyramiden, a town in the Arctic Circle that has stood empty of humans since 1998. Visit today and you will find cups left on the table, skiing equipment abandoned in the hallway and newspaper cuttings on the wall. "Walking Pyramiden today gives you a glimpes into the Soviet -style nostalgia, outdoor as well as indoor. Best of all, its not an artificial scenery aimed for some kind of movie-production. This is real. The smell of papirosa, likely the strongest cigarette ever made, stains on the indoor walls. Hammer and Sickle ornaments and the Soviet star are used as decoration around the town," the Barent Observer writes of Pyramiden. "In a remote room inside the Palace of Culture are a few empty bottles of the cheap domestic Rossiya- and Priviet vodka. A book with the transcripts from the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union lays on a desk. That was the first congress presided over by Mikhail Gorbachev as General Secretary of the Central Committee." There are few signs of life beyond the occasional hardy seabird, an Arctic fox or a polar bear looking for its next meal. Unlike the Mary Celeste, there is no mystery around why the occupants of Pyramiden left in such a hurry. The Russian state-owned mining company Trust Arktikugol closed down Pyramiden's mining operations in April 1998, following 53 years of continuous activity. The end of the settlement neared as coal prices dwindled, difficulties with coal extraction from the mountain became more apparent, and 141 people tragically lost their lives in 1996 at Operafjellet. Miners and their families perished in the plane crash that had been ferrying them from Pyramiden to Barentsburg. Such was the scale of the tragedy and the impact it had on the town of 1,000 that its continued operation proved impossible. The town was first founded by Sweden in 1910 but was sold to the USSR 17 years later. From 1955 to 1998, up to nine million tonnes of coal were thought to have been pumped out of Pyramiden. Svalbard belongs to Norway under the Svalbard treaty, which allows citizens from all its member countries to become residents. The treaty reads: 'All citizens and all companies of every nation under the treaty are allowed to become residents and to have access to Svalbard including the right to fish, hunt or undertake any kind of maritime, industrial, mining or trade activity." In its pomp, it boasted a theatre, studios for creative arts, and a library. The schools, 24-hour canteen, and sports complex are all gone. All that remains is a statue of former Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin, the northernmost monument to him in the world. Today, the main thing occupying the ghost town now are the terrifying polar bears. However, six people operate as rifle-carrying warders in the summer. Despite the nearest settlement being some 31 miles away, dark tourism has been gently ticking along since 2013, but you can only access Pyramiden by boat or snowmobile for nine months of the year. One visitor to the town in 2018 wrote in Haaretz: "There are thousands of angry polar bears all around us.'
Boston Globe
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Georgian-Russian sculptor Zurab Tsereteli, known for his gigantic and controversial work, dies
In the 1970s, Tsereteli became an art director with the Soviet Foreign Ministry, traveling the world and decorating Soviet embassies. In between, he worked on Mikhail Gorbachev's summer house in Abkhazia. 'I don't know why they chose me,' he said in a 2013 interview. 'But I went through a good school - maybe that's why. A school that synthesised architecture and monumental art! I had good teachers.' In 1989, a monument designed by Tsereteli was erected in London. In 1990, another one was unveiled in front of the United Nations headquarters in New York. After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Tsereteli moved to Moscow and built a rapport with then-mayor Yuri Luzhkov. The relationship guaranteed him regular and lucrative commissions. He designed several squares and two metro stations in central Moscow and put up a dozen massive monuments around the city. Advertisement Tsereteli's distinctive style prompted much criticism over the years, both in Russia and abroad. Critics argued his pieces were too colossal and didn't fit in the city's architecture. One of his most controversial monuments was in 1997 when a 98-meter-tall Peter the Great standing on a disproportionally small ship was erected a block away from the Kremlin, prompting protests from Muscovites. Advertisement Tsereteli tried to put up a similar monument of Christopher Columbus in New York. Russian media reported in 1997 that current U.S. President Donald Trump supported his plans at the time, but city authorities rejected them. After being turned down by Columbus, Ohio and Miami as well, the statue found a taker in Puerto Rico. Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2003 awarded Tsereteli Russian citizenship 'for special services to the Russian Federation.' In 2010, Luzhkov was dismissed as Moscow mayor. The new city administration preferred Western architects to work on ambitious urban projects, and Tsereteli was shifted to the sidelines. However, Tsereteli remained president of the Russian Academy of Arts and director of the Moscow Museum of Modern Art, which he founded in 1999. His legacy includes some 5,000 pieces in Russia, Georgia and several other countries.
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - US national security strategy is on life support
Most people turn off when they hear terms like 'national security strategy.' In some ways, this rather esoteric use of language is purposely made obscure so that only so-called 'experts' can debate and talk or write about it. But national security affects all of us and thus must be of great concern. Since the end of World War II and the start of the Cold War, national security strategy rested on three simple principles. The first was a strong economy; the second was a system of alliances and allies determined to defend themselves against a common enemy — in the first instance, the Soviet Union. Third, and especially in a thermonuclear age when war could be existential to society, the capability to deter conflict. Left unsaid was what would be needed to fight and win a world war, assuming winning were possible. These basic principles made great sense. And while many lesser wars and conflicts were fought and not deterred around the world, world war between the West and the Soviet Union was prevented. Some believe that it was the military might of the U.S. and its allies that was responsible when, in fact, the irrational nature of the Soviet system could not be sustained. When Mikhail Gorbachev took the reins of power in 1986, he attempted to reform and modernize his country through perestroika(restructuring) and glasnost (openness). Instead, the brittle system could not withstand any external pressure for change, and imploded in 1989. The collapse raised a profound challenge for the U.S. and the West. Would the new Russia be capable of becoming a Western democracy and ally? And if yes, what were the policies to accomplish that aim? Nearly 40 years since the USSR was dissolved, the answer was clear: 'Nyet!' In U.S. strategy, Russia has become the 'acute' threat and China the 'pacing' threat. The problem is that neither word fits. 'Acute' can mean 'dire,' 'dreadful' or 'terrible.' It also means 'sharp,' 'shrewd' or 'astute.' 'Pacing' means doing everything in moderation. Hence, it is not surprising that, from ill-defined danger, the subsequent strategy is flawed. The current National Defense Strategy, relatively unchanged from the original Obama administration's 2014 version, is meant to compete, deter and, if war comes, prevail against a range of potential adversaries topped by China and Russia. That, in turn, raises a series of crucial questions. In terms of competition, how is that measured and on what basis? None have been defined. If it is economic, Russia simply cannot compete. China can, but which factors make up the pacing threat? Regarding deterrence, what is actually being deterred? China has not been swayed from expanding its influence, threatening Taiwan and building an impressive navy, at least on paper. Russia was not deterred from seizing Crimea in 2014 or invading Ukraine three years ago, as well as threatening the use of nuclear weapons. Should war come, it could involve using thermonuclear and nuclear weapons. A thermonuclear weapon, by definition, is 1,000 times greater than a nuclear one. Who would win a thermonuclear or nuclear war? The likely answer is no one. An intelligent person would ask, 'Can we do better than this?' That means identifying exactly what the threats are and deriving a strategy far better defined than the ambiguous terms 'compete,' 'deter' and 'defeat.' That means starting from first principles and understanding exactly what threat China or Russia poses before moving to the strategy for countering it. I have long argued that the major danger facing us comes from 'Massive Attacks of Disruption and Destruction,' whether wrought by man or nature. In both cases, prevention rather than deterrence is necessary. It's unlikely to stave off an attack that an enemy regards as inevitable, and nearly impossible to deter a pandemic, catastrophic storm or earthquake. Whether Massive Attacks of Disruption and Destruction fits or not, a construct like it is needed now. Regarding the three bases for strategy, the Trump administration's tariff and tax policies are imposing great damage on the economy. Alliances are being eroded by America First policies. And we're not deterring anything. This calls for a fundamental review of national security and strategy. Yet, the likelihood of a truly first principles approach in the current exceedingly toxic political environment is nil. The crucial question is whether this nation is capable of such an effort. And on that, our collective future may rest. Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at Washington, D.C.'s Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and David Richards are authors of the forthcoming book, 'The Arc of Failure: Can Decisive Strategic Thinking Transform a Dangerous World.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
21-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
US national security strategy is on life support
Most people turn off when they hear terms like 'national security strategy.' In some ways, this rather esoteric use of language is purposely made obscure so that only so-called 'experts' can debate and talk or write about it. But national security affects all of us and thus must be of great concern. Since the end of World War II and the start of the Cold War, national security strategy rested on three simple principles. The first was a strong economy; the second was a system of alliances and allies determined to defend themselves against a common enemy — in the first instance, the Soviet Union. Third, and especially in a thermonuclear age when war could be existential to society, the capability to deter conflict. Left unsaid was what would be needed to fight and win a world war, assuming winning were possible. These basic principles made great sense. And while many lesser wars and conflicts were fought and not deterred around the world, world war between the West and the Soviet Union was prevented. Some believe that it was the military might of the U.S. and its allies that was responsible when, in fact, the irrational nature of the Soviet system could not be sustained. When Mikhail Gorbachev took the reins of power in 1986, he attempted to reform and modernize his country through perestroika (restructuring) and glasnost (openness). Instead, the brittle system could not withstand any external pressure for change, and imploded in 1989. The collapse raised a profound challenge for the U.S. and the West. Would the new Russia be capable of becoming a Western democracy and ally? And if yes, what were the policies to accomplish that aim? Nearly 40 years since the USSR was dissolved, the answer was clear: 'Nyet!' In U.S. strategy, Russia has become the ' acute ' threat and China the ' pacing ' threat. The problem is that neither word fits. 'Acute' can mean 'dire,' 'dreadful' or 'terrible.' It also means 'sharp,' 'shrewd' or 'astute.' 'Pacing' means doing everything in moderation. Hence, it is not surprising that, from ill-defined danger, the subsequent strategy is flawed. The current National Defense Strategy, relatively unchanged from the original Obama administration's 2014 version, is meant to compete, deter and, if war comes, prevail against a range of potential adversaries topped by China and Russia. That, in turn, raises a series of crucial questions. In terms of competition, how is that measured and on what basis? None have been defined. If it is economic, Russia simply cannot compete. China can, but which factors make up the pacing threat? Regarding deterrence, what is actually being deterred? China has not been swayed from expanding its influence, threatening Taiwan and building an impressive navy, at least on paper. Russia was not deterred from seizing Crimea in 2014 or invading Ukraine three years ago, as well as threatening the use of nuclear weapons. Should war come, it could involve using thermonuclear and nuclear weapons. A thermonuclear weapon, by definition, is 1,000 times greater than a nuclear one. Who would win a thermonuclear or nuclear war? The likely answer is no one. An intelligent person would ask, 'Can we do better than this?' That means identifying exactly what the threats are and deriving a strategy far better defined than the ambiguous terms 'compete,' 'deter' and 'defeat.' That means starting from first principles and understanding exactly what threat China or Russia poses before moving to the strategy for countering it. I have long argued that the major danger facing us comes from ' Massive Attacks of Disruption and Destruction,' whether wrought by man or nature. In both cases, prevention rather than deterrence is necessary. It's unlikely to stave off an attack that an enemy regards as inevitable, and nearly impossible to deter a pandemic, catastrophic storm or earthquake. Whether Massive Attacks of Disruption and Destruction fits or not, a construct like it is needed now. Regarding the three bases for strategy, the Trump administration's tariff and tax policies are imposing great damage on the economy. Alliances are being eroded by America First policies. And we're not deterring anything. This calls for a fundamental review of national security and strategy. Yet, the likelihood of a truly first principles approach in the current exceedingly toxic political environment is nil. The crucial question is whether this nation is capable of such an effort. And on that, our collective future may rest. Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at Washington, D.C.'s Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and David Richards are authors of the forthcoming book, 'The Arc of Failure: Can Decisive Strategic Thinking Transform a Dangerous World.'
