CPS in Russia...sounding "the right" notes. Part III.

Since the “Fall of the Soviet Union” in 1989, the remains of that massive empire have gone through some major outward changes, but inwardly, other than losing Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic nations, and “the Stans” not much has really changed, internally. The apparatus of the Soviet Union was a bit more complete and stifling, to be sure, than that of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and now “The Russian Federation.” The greatest difference in terms of Russian government responsibility, is that there is now only half the mouths to feed (and to pacify) and there is a great deal more cultural homogeneity than there had been under the U.S.S.R.

As I’ve pointed out, and based on defector testimony and an understanding of global elites and their desire for a global government using the Hegelian Dialectic, the best assessment of the events of the past three decades in Russia would be that the nation is seeking to become a full participant in the emerging United Nations government, rather than a go-it-alone bystander. Russian elites and politicos seem to feel that this is preferable to playing second fiddle to the United States on the international stage, and it would seem they feel they would have a better chance of using the U.N. as a battering ram against U.S. exceptionalism, than the USA would have trying to doing the same in return.

Part of the strategy is to be as cooperative with the U.N. and its agencies as publicly possibly, and that is certainly the reason that the Russian Federation became a signatory to The U.N.’s so-called “Convention on the Rights of the Child” (UNCRC.) Strangely though (or maybe not so strangely given what I’ve written about Norman Dodd, Rowan Gaither, and the Reece Commission investigations,) a lot of the push for “modernizing” CPS in Russia is coming from U.S. agents, NGOs and “exchanges.”

Consider, for example, this report, and pay particular attention, right off the top, to the title page:

http://www.usrussiasocialexpertise.org/sites/default/files/Overview%20Child%20Protection%20Systems%20Publication%20-%20EN%20.pdf

The US-Russia Social Expertise Exchange is self-defined at their website as being: “a diverse network of Russian and US professionals and entrepreneurs engaged in a meaningful exchange of ideas and best practices that lead to joint action and positive change in the social dimensions of both countries.” As with most NGOs (Non-governmental Organizations) in the real of social policy, they are very likely tied at the hip with the United Nations, and the Eurasia Group that is behind them makes these super ambiguous statements about themselves, almost as if (like many U.N. Agenda 21 efforts) they don’t want to really let people know what they’re all about:

“Our Mission
Eurasia Foundation equips citizens to build resilient communities.

Our Vision
All citizens have the opportunity to realize their full potential and transform their societies.”

In their financial statements we learn that over $6,000,000 of Eurasia Fund’s funding for the most recent reporting year came from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the rest ($2.4 million) from the State Department. Both of these are, of course, 100% funded by the U.S. taxpayer. This is part of the “foreign aid” that conservative politicians always talk so much about reining in, but never do.

(Russian oblasts--"sectors.")

According to the report cited above, the stated purpose of modern CPS in Russia is as follows (from pg. 34):

“At this stage in its development, Russian social policy views protection of the family, motherhood, and childhood as one of its main goals. Article 38 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation declares that motherhood, childhood, and the family fall under state protection, and that taking care of one's children is the right and responsibility of all parents. The Russian Federation is a member of the United Nations and the Council of Europe, which means that all legislation adopted by the Russian Federation must comply with international law in the area of children's rights.

Russia became party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990 and ratified it in 2013."

"Comply with" can mean different things to do different people at different times and in different places. Also, even though U.S. taxpayers are, at best, reluctant supporters of our own failed CPS milieu, we are meanwhile being forced to finance its implementation overseas, and in countries like Russia with which, the mainstream media tells us, we are estranged. Perhaps that’s until, as Rowan Gaither told Norman Dodd, such time as we can be “comfortably merged” with them.

(Rowan Gaither of the Ford Foundation, who admitted he was charged with using his grant-making authority to smooth the way for a merger of the two super powers...i.e. to Communize the USA...)

The report is a long series of “wonk talk” for the most part, and the upshot of it all is that Russia is being heavily criticized for their “over reliance” on orphanages for both ”real” orphans and for kids whose parents simply are not fit to keep them. This despite, as we pointed out yesterday, the fact that Russian graduates of the orphanage system do better on most social measurements that US kids coming out of CPS custody (of whatever form.)

The report goes into some detail regarding all the various laws and regulations passed since 1996 to bring the Russian Federation into “compliance” with “international norms” of child protection. The big push is for “deinstitutionalization”..i.e. getting kids out of orphanages and into private foster care arrangements that more closely aligned with Western (mostly failed) arrangements. Russia does seem to be making strides toward that goal, and is saying all the right things (publicly at least) to keep international aid workers and UNICEF spies appeased.

Still, I can’t help but get the feeling that much of what both the Russian authorities and the aid providers are doing is simply designed to justify their own existence, and that the goal is to present “changes” to the world while doing their best to maintain traditional ways of handling children in need of assistance. And, that is probably a good thing for Russia’s children.

(Image courtesy of oilprice.com.)

However, the interlopers have “plans” for the Russian people and their children, and will continue to push them forward in Russia just as UNICEF and other front groups do throughout the developing world. Here is a brief excerpt regarding their plans for Russia’s orphanages:

“Each region has adopted a program to reorganize, convert, or close existing orphanages, providing a foundation on which to establish various support services for families, surrogate parents, and alumni of the system. Unused buildings have the potential to be converted to kindergartens or institutes for continuing education.”

This begs the question...”What is so bad about the orphanage that forcing children to live with total strangers where they have no real peer support becomes paramount?” Russians are very insular in terms of their view of the family unit. Family privacy and the propensity to keep family problems (and solutions) extremely private is a factor of Russian life. There is no history of fostering in Russia, and there is a stigma attached to taking in children not born to the family if they are not close relatives.

(Children in a typical orphanage. Courtesy of en.wikipedia.org.)

Adoption is a more acceptable alternative within the Russian cultural context. Of course, Russia stopped permitting the adoption by foreigners (especially Americans) years ago for unrelated reasons, and this means the available pool of adoptive parents is mostly from other Russian families where the financial resources are less likely to increase a child’s standard of living (though that is not a key determinant of adoptive success, of course.)

To be honest, it would appear that shutting down orphanages in order to appease foreign social meddlers (or U.N. bureaucrats) is a dangerous policy in a nation with a climate such as Russia’s. It would seem that freezing children to death on the streets is not a major concern of foreigners who have limited experience with the brutal Russian winters.

The inroads of deinstitutionalization are impressive (if that is your stated goal) and in recent years the total number of children taken into some sort of family/home environment has actually surpassed the number of children in orphanages and other institutional care. Of course, this change has been a gradual process and is still only a decade-old push, so not much can yet be said about the results based on alumni interviews.

Conversely there is a long history of institutional alumni and surveys to assess the success of children recently moving on from orphanages. As of 2013, there were about 22,000 alumni who were recent orphanage occupants. Of these, many “young people are offered apartments for adaptive social experience, life skills classes (in areas such as self-care, health, leisure, etc.), vocational classes (basic design, computers, driving, and others), workshops (sewing, pottery, carpentry), and communication training to expand their options for further education, employment, etc. Almost all orphanage alumni pursue a college or university education.” (pg. 59)

Most institutional alumni have a post-institutional personal advisor assigned by the government. This is true of almost all alumni in Russia’s largest cities, who have an assigned adult counselor, and who have a whole range of government educational and social programs designed to aid their transition to adult society. Again, the Russian orphanage system seems to work quite well, and is only grudgingly being superseded by more “modern” (and very questionable) Western and U.N.-sponsored approaches.

(Russian President Vladimir Putin, courtesy of apnews.com.)

The Russian people are used to doing more with less. I've lived among them and can attest to the personal pride and the family ties that characterize these hearty folk. Despite a per capita income that is about 1/5th to 1/6th that of the USA, the vast majority of Russians with whom I have conversed were always neatly and cleanly dressed and groomed--except for the occasional drunk. Their apartments were neat as a pin and cleaned like most Americans have no understanding of clean. It is not atypical for grown children to move to the cities, to live in very simple flats, and to send as much as half of their factory wages of $200-300 per month home back to their elderly parents.

Of course, there are other societies where family ties are strong, but there are none more so than the Russians. Additionally, they are tough and resilient, both from dealing with tyrannical and inefficient government, but also for overcoming the challenges of a harsh climate year after year. Despite mouthing the necessary things to officialdom, the Russian people typically will do what they want at home, and taking in strange children is not something they will do easily or comfortable, as they are also a people of tradition and normalcy. There is nothing normal about suddenly inserting someone else's children into your home.

They may yet prove me wrong. The Russians may yet end up with a modernized CPS system, complete with Western-style internal abuse, sex trafficking, you name it. However, I don't think the Russian people would ever stand by and let their nation's children become sex slaves for the elite as happens in other parts of the more "developed" world. The word gets around more quickly through traditional means, and these are a tough people willing to protest and to address injustice in the face of tyranny.

Again, they may play along if Putin tells them they must, but I get the feeling that any modernization of their child protection system will be characterized by hitting as many of the "right notes" as possible, while doing as little as possible to actually comply at the local level.