It seems like just yesterday that we were asking ourselves if the United States was Rome. In light of the financial collapse in the other great cradle of Mediterranean civilization, the New York Times' David Leonhardt poses the inevitable follow-up question:

It’s easy to look at the protesters and the politicians in Greece -- and at the other European countries with huge debts -- and wonder why they don’t get it. They have been enjoying more generous government benefits than they can afford. No mass rally and no bailout fund will change that. Only benefit cuts or tax increases can.

Yet in the back of your mind comes a nagging question: how different, really, is the United States?

The U.S.'s national debt, Leonhardt notes, is projected to rise to 140 percent of GDP within the next twenty years -- Greece's is 115 percent today.

Elsewhere at the Times, Paul Krugman questions the credibility of that long-range projection and argues that the U.S. shouldn't worry:

Basically, the United States can expect economic recovery to bring the deficit down substantially; Greece, which has a larger structural deficit and also faces a grinding adjustment to overvaluation with the eurozone, can’t.

About that eurozone: in a phenomenally awkward bit of timing, Estonia happened to be trying to join it today, and succeeded. Other countries like Poland and Bulgaria, however, are having second thoughts. Greece's current predicament, and the looming crises in Spain, Portugal, and elsewhere, have offered a cautionary tale. The Associated Press looks at the divergent experiences of Hungary and Romania, which are members of the European Union but not the eurozone, and Greece, which is in both: When the IMF bailed out Hungary and Romania in 2009, the countries were able to make the necessary adjustments quickly, if painfully, by letting their currencies fall. Greece, however, can't, and is now looking at far harsher, more drawn-out austerity measures attached to its 110 billion euro bailout.

Former Polish Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the identical twin brother of late Polish President Lech Kaczynski, has announced that he will run for the presidency:

The BBC's Adam Easton in Warsaw says his brother could benefit from a significant sympathy vote in the wake of the tragedy. Parliamentary Speaker Bronislaw Komorowski, who became acting head of state after the crash, had been preparing to run against Lech Kaczynski.

Opinion polls have suggested that Mr Komorowski will defeat Mr Kaczynski in the snap election on June 20. The election was called after the president, his wife and 94 senior officials were killed in a plane crash in Russia on 10 April.

If elected president, Kaczynski would also face up against Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who defeated him in a 2007 election.

Russia is a country that has yet to come to terms with its history. Russian public opinion is sharply divided on every one  of their previous General Secretaries and Presidents, with the exception of relatively minor figures like Malenkov, Chernenko, Andropov, and... Lenin? For whatever reason, Lenin, the man who led the October Revolution and founded the Soviet Union, has received considerably less public attention than his succesors. 

Recently, though, Lenin has re-entered public consciousness as Russians have begun to debate whether the government should move Lenin's corpse from its present location in Red Square, where it is publicly displayed in a mausoleum, and bury it elsewhere. (Instead of making any predictable jokes, I refer the reader to an unrelated FP post on zombies.)

Today, Sergei Karpentsov provided Russians with a third option: perhaps after watching one too many horror movies, Karpentsov, armed with a gas-powered pistol, attempted to break into Lenin's tomb and shoot his corpse. After being arrested, Karpentsov declared that

"My main demand is the quick bulldozing of the mausoleum which contains the body of the anti-Christ...I wanted to open fire on the tomb with an assault rifle but I was advised not to do that in case the tomb is armour-plated."

Later, Karpentsov added that "I have drawn attention to this issue with my actions."

Yes you have, Sergei, yes you have.

Today Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh met in New Delhi to sign a number of bi-lateral commercial agreements. While the agreements cover a wide variety of topics, including space exploration, fertilizer importation, and commodities trade, nuclear energy and defense are what have received the most attention.

Edging out competition from France and the United States, Russia won contracts to build up to 16 new civilian nuclear power plants in India, six of which are expected to be completed by 2017, according to Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov. This is sure to leave a sour taste in the mouths of many American firms, especially after the success of the 2005 Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear agreement.

Additionally, the two countries signed a multi-billion dollar deal which will see Russia refit Indian aircraft carriers, help India develop transport aircraft, and supply India with 29 new MiG fighter jets.This should leave Russia well positioned to remain India's largest military hardware supplier. Currently, Russia accounts for approximately 60-70% of India's total defense spending. 

While New Delhi's goal of diversifying its energy supplies and moving away from coal may be admirable -- in 2003, coal was estimated to account for almost 70% of India's energy consumption -- you've got to question the wisdom of sinking billions of dollars into improving commercial ties with Russia when your country's per capita GDP puts you in the bottom quartile of the world.  

Ukrainian politics are really confusing:

"The main result of these elections is that Yanukovich came first, but did not win. Tymoshenko, on the other hand, lost but was not defeated," Ukrainska Pravda commentator Vadym Karasov wrote.

Got that?

Tymoshenko broke her post-election silence yesterday, attacking Yanukovych's campaign promises at a cabinet meeting but not discussing her future plans. Since Tymoshenko clearly has no intention of stepping down voluntarily and Yanukovych likely doesn't have the votes to dismiss her government, Ukraine appears set for another crippling political standoff.

This morning at the Center for American Progress, a panel of veteran American Ukraine hands briefed a group of Ukrainian political leaders and think tankers via satellite on the implications of this Sunday's presidential election on U.S.-Ukrainian relations. The main takeaway from the panel -- former ambassador William Taylor, former ambassador Steven Pifer, former NSC official Damon Wilson, and CAP associate director and FP contributor Samuel Charap -- was that unlike the 2004 "Orange Revolution" election, the U.S. doesn't really have a dog in the fight between Viktor Yanukovych and Yulia Tymoshenko and was simply hoping for a credible government that could be a reliable negotiating partner on issues like NATO integration and energy security.

The Ukrainian audience seemed to mostly share the Americans' frustration with the pace of political change in Ukraine, but some questioners also expressed frustration that Ukraine was being ignored in the "reset" with Russia:

After the panel, asked Wilson and Pifer what a Yanukovych vs. a Tymoshenko win would mean for Ukraine's relations with the west:   

Damon Wilson: Yanukovych has a high bar to prove that he is a modern European leader. He has a bad record, stole an election, not to mention criminal actions before then. He has an image problem. When you look at him on the campaign trail, he harkens back the old school, not the modern European political school. When he's sitting in a room with a European president or prime minister, do they feel like they're dealing with someone who's really bringing his country toward Europe? He's got some work to do. 

The challenge with Tymoshenko: is she going to be a reliable partner.

Steven Pifer: Which Tymoshenko do you get? Do you get Tymoshenko the populist, or the Tymoshenko we saw in 2009 who is maybe the more serious politician, prepared to tackle problems in a serious way. That's also a question on Sunday. Which Tymoshenko has she persuaded the Ukrainian electorate that their going to get. 

President Obama has brought back his 2008 campiagn manager David Plouffe to help  get his domestic agenda back on track ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, but if he really wants to throw the Republicans off their game, he may want to take a trip to the dark side (No, not James Carville) and learn from how they do things in Romania:

[Romanian Presidential runner-up Mircea] Geoana, in media interviews last week, asserted that he was targeted by waves of negative energy during a key debate just before the runoff that was won by [reelected President Traian] Basescu.

“People who were working for Basescu in this domain were present to the right of the camera,’’ Geoana told Antena 3 Television. His wife, Mihaela said Geoana “was very badly attacked, he couldn’t concentrate.’’

At first Romanians mocked their former foreign minister saying he was a bad loser. Basescu himself jokingly dismissed the allegations. But the recent publication of photos showing well-known parapsychologist Aliodor Manolea close to Basescu during the campaign has caused Romanians to wonder whether the president really did put a hex on his rival.

The photos show Manolea, a slightly built, bearded man with a round face and cropped receding hair, walking yards behind Basescu ahead of the debate. Manolea’s specialties include deep mind control, clairvoyance, and hypnotic trance, according to the Romanian Association of Transpersonal Psychology.

The Basescu campaign has not outright denied Maneola's inolvement -- only that he didn't participate in staff meetings -- or explained why he appeared with the candidate. But don't be surprised if you see a slightly built, bearded Eastern European man walking behind Arlen Specter in the coming months. 

From Unredacted, the very cool blog of the National Security Archive, here is a letter from Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated U.S. President John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963, asking for citizenship from the Soviet Union. He lived in the Soviet Union, mostly in Minsk, from 1959 to 1962; the Soviets rejected his request for citizenship. A PDF of the letter is here -- a bit grainy, but readable. Here's what it says:

I Lee Harvey Oswald, request that I be granted citizenship in the Soviet Union, my visa began on Oct. 15, and will expire on Oct. 21, I must be granted asylum before this date. [Unreadable] I wait for the citizenship decision.

At present I am a citizen of the United States of America.

I want citizenship because; I am a communist and a worker, I have lived in a decadent capitalist society where the workers  are slaves.

I am twenty years old, I have completed three years  in the United States Marine Corps, I served with the occupation forces in Japan, I have seen American military imperialism in all its forms,

I do not want to return to any country outside of the Soviet Union. 

I am writing to give up my American citizenship and assume the responsibilities of a Soviet citizen.

I had saved my money which I earned as a private in the American military for two years, in order to come to Russia for the express purpose of seeking citizenship here. I do not have enough money left to live indefintly [sic] here, or to return to any other country. I have no desire to return to any other country. I ask that my request be given quick consideration. 

Sincerly[sic],

Lee H. Oswald

Just six months ago, the Kremlin declared "mission accomplished" in settling the restive, largely-Muslim region of Chechnya, and pledged to withdraw at least half its troops stationed there. Russian soldiers have allegedly resorted to brutal tactics in the decade-long effort to subdue the region, including the systematic beating and raping of Chechen civilians, widespread detention and torture, and the murder of human rights and opposition activists.

But the Kremlin has claimed victory in the regional struggle time and time again, and the most recent claims of success seem as wrong as ever; yesterday the Georgian Daily reported that "Moscow is planning to increase the number of units in the North Caucasus military district by a factor of four, according to officers there..." The plans come amidst an escalating Islamic insurgency in Ingushetia, the region bordering Chechnya to the west.  

There's no doubt that the Kremlin is facing a protracted struggle. Doku Umarov, one of the most prominent members of the insurgency (who has been reported dead on a number of occasions) released a lengthy statement in 2007 on the Al-Qaeda affiliated website Kavkaz Center, in which he declared Muslim rule:

 I reject all laws and systems established by infidels in the land of Caucasus.

I reject and declare outlawed all names used by infidels to divide Muslims.

I declare outlawed ethnic, territorial and colonial zones carrying names of "North-Caucasian republics", "Trans-Caucasian republics" and such like.

I am officially declaring of creation of the Caucasus Emirate...

We will relentlessly wage war on everyone who will oppose the establishment of the Sharia, Inshaallah. And those who openly violate that which was established by Allah and scorn the Islamic religion should not think that we will leave it unpunished. That is a serious delusion."

Photo:  KAZBEK BASAYEV/AFP/Getty Images

Combating alchohol abuse has always been something of a non-starter in Russian politics. This is, after all, a country whose former president was once found by the Secret Servce thoroughly sauced outside the White House, wearing nothing but his underwear trying to hail a cab so he could get a pizza.

But current President Dmitry Medvedev is trying to change things with a proposal to ban outdoor beer sales in his country, a first step in getting Muscovites to lay off alcohol. He also wants to limit the hours of the day alcohol can be sold.

This week, a bill was submitted to lawmakers that would triple the tax on beer from 3 rubles per liter to 10 rubles per liter by 2012. Wine and spirits would also see a sharp increase.

State prosecutors are also moving to ban liquor sales in airports. Under Russian law, no beverage with alcohol content above 15 percent can be sold in crowded or dangerous places, and prosecutors say this means airports.

Russians drink five gallons of pure ethanol a year, double what is considered dangerous by the WHO. And on average, 30,000 people a year die from alcohol poisoning in the country. Over half of the deaths of the 15 to 54-year-old demographic between 1990 and 2001 are attributed to alcohol.

"I have been astonished to find out that we now drink more than we did in the 1990s, although those were very tough times," Medvedev said.

He is a fan of Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev's anti-alcohol reforms in the 1980s aimed at curbing consumption, even though he acknowledges that the plan had major flaws. Gorbachev destroyed the majority of vineyards and wineries in Georgia, probably the birthplace of wine (This didn't help the growing anti-Russia sentiment in the Southern Caucasus at the time). He also shut down distilleries and breweries. Most notably, the Soviet Union suffered tremendous sugar shortages, because people turned to moon shining. (The Russian word for ‘shine is Samogon) Stores also ran out of window cleaner and aftershave. It is estimated that 13,000-25,000 people died from drinking ill-made moonshine.

Medvedev's plan is much more cautious but many Russians are still wary.

"It's impossible. He doesn't stand a chance," a Russian construction worker told The Los Angeles Times."The Russian man will always be drinking. Russians don't surrender."

ALEXANDER NEMENOV/AFP/Getty Images 

 Mikhail Prokhorov is the chairman of Russia's largest gold producer, and now he will team up with hip-hop's largest gold-record producer.

Prokhorov, Russia's richest man (even after a $7 billion loss last year), bought the New Jersey Nets yesterday for $200 million, making him the first Russian owner of a U.S. sports team.  This also makes him business partners with Jay-Z. (Who seems to be getting a lot of play in foreign policy circles these days)

The first order of business will be to move the Nets to Jay-Z's native Brooklyn, and begin building the new stadium.  The deal seems to be as much about business as it is about pleasure for the 6ft. 7in. Prokhorov, who said in a statement, "I have a long-standing passion for basketball and pursuing interests that forward the development of the sport in Russia."

He also claims he will be, "the only NBA owner who can dunk."

The stadium will be fewer than 10 miles from Brighton Beach, an area of Brooklyn rich with Russian influence, Bloomberg reports.

The move to Brooklyn has been a goal of Jay-Z's (basketball discussion starts at 5:30); however it remains unclear if Jay-Z will get what he really wants. (Hint: he made a controversial song about him)

Although the deal still needs to be approved by the NBA board of governors, it is a break from the emerging trend of Russians buying London soccer teams.

Al Bello/Getty Images

I asked George Perkovich, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the head of its nonproliferation program, to weigh in on the news, reported last night on The Cable and in this morning's Wall Street Journal, that the Obama administration is pulling back on U.S. missile-defense plans in Eastern Europe.

There have been signs for months that Obama would do exactly this, but it looks like the administration didn't expect the news to break last night, as officials have seemed unprepared to manage this story in a way that they'd like. (Certainly, the Poles and Czechs must feel they've been treated rudely here.) Already, Drudge is declaring it a "Putin victory" and rounding up global reactions, mostly critical of the move.

U.S. officials, meanwhile, are saying the change is based on a "determination that Iran's long-range missile program hasn't progressed as rapidly as previously estimated, reducing the threat to the continental U.S. and major European capitals."

In an interview conducted before this latest news broke, the State Department's Ellen O. Tauscher told my colleague Josh Rogin that "What is important is to get the priority of the threat right, current versus emerging."

Here's Perkovich, who thinks it's a long-overdue decision:

Briefly, this is not about kowtowing to Moscow and it is too bad that some will perceive it this way. The proposed system was clearly not well-located to be effective against Iranian missiles. But it was well located to become part of a more ambitious system against Russian missiles. Given that the U.S. intention is to deter or defeat Iranian missiles, canceling this move and planning to develop defenses further to the south is clearly the wise thing to do. The U.S. should not try to develop missile defenses to defeat Russian missiles, because this would only cause Russia to build more and to keep them more ready to be launched rapidly. Russia would fear that the combination of U.S. offensive weapons plus defenses could enable the U.S. to try a disarming first strike against it. Yes, this is a bizarre throwback to the Cold War days, but old habits of thought and practice die hard -- in Moscow and Washington. The administration's decision reduces this risk. It corrects an earlier mistake.

At the same time, however, perceptions matter. So it will be important for the U.S. to reassure Poland and the Czech Republic that the U.S. is wholly committed to their security. There are multiple ways to do this, including military exercises on their territory, etc. The best way would be to encourage Russia to demonstrate a more cooperative and friendly attitude towards these states, which would lessen the sense of threat and the need for the U.S. to reassure its allies against such threats. If Russia chooses not to be more reassuring, especially after this missile defense decision, then it would have no legitimate basis for protesting if the U.S. and NATO take defensive steps to reassure members of the alliance.

The Moscow Times reports that Russia has issued new guidlelines to law enforcement officials about how to define extremism:

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Winnie the Pooh share a dubious honor: Anyone who depicts either of them with a swastika can be punished under the law.

The Justice Ministry published the latest — and biggest — update to its list of extremist materials on its web site this week, and many of the 414 new entries are so vague or controversial that analysts say they threaten to discredit the list all together.

The list is important because police officers and other law enforcement officials use it in street checks, apartment searches and criminal cases.

Among the new entries, extremist material is identified as “a picture of Winnie the Pooh wearing a swastika,” “a self-made template for a future newspaper, comic or other print materials,” and “a flag with a cross.”

 And just when you thought that was all:

A closer look at the list brings other surprises. For example, item No. 402 is the LiveJournal blog Reinform.livejournal.com.

The blog has not been suspended by LiveJournal’s abuse team and is being updated almost daily. Its owner wrote on its front page that he had opened the blog after seeing prosecutors mistakenly name the then-nonexistent blog as extremist.

With 414 items already on the list, it goes well beyond swastikas and I'm starting to get worried. Is Passport's entirely serious interest in shirtless Putin pictures extremist or patriotic? 

MJ Kim/Getty Images

Three months after this year's Eurovision Song Contest, an unconfirmed number of Azerbaijanis who voted for the Armenian entry have been brought in for questioning by the police.  One man said he was accused of being unpatriotic and a "potential security threat." Authorities said people were simply invited to explain their voting choices.

Azerbaijan and Armenia have a history of strained relations, largely over territorial claims that remain unresolved. Last November, leaders of the neighboring countries pledged to find a political solution to the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region, over which the two fought in the 1990s. Little progress, however, seems to have been made since.

Broadcast live every May since its inaugural telecast in 1956, Eurovision is today a cultural institution, and the epitome of Kunderian kitsch. Despite the organizers' aspirations for an apolitical competition, historic undercurrents inevitably surface on screen. Habitual incidences of bloc voting occur, and in March Georgia's entry "We Don't Wanna Put In" was banned for its thinly-veiled reference to the Russian prime minister.

In Azerbaijan, 43 people are believed to have voted for Armenia's entry "Jan Jan," pictured above.

Oleg Nikishin/Epsilon/Getty Images