A report from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission shows that index funds actually were cutting their stake in the oil market as prices were soaring.

When I read Paul Starobin’s recent article “Why Russia’s Post-Putin Future May Not Be Democratic”, I couldn’t help but disagree with his skeptical assessment of the political inclinations of the Russian people. Indeed, having just recently returned from that country, where I was working as a long-term elections observer for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), I can attest that Russians are far more interested in liberal democracy than Mr. Starobin suggests.

Mr. Starobin’s mistaken conclusions are derived from a common mistake: In using the Russian election results as the basis of his analysis, he takes them at face value. The OSCE has already detailed the many problems we found in the elections process. An election is supposed to represent the political will of a public that has been fully exposed to the views of differing political factions. By that measure, the Russian elections fell far short.

The most important statistic to look at in assessing the legitimacy of an election is the turn-out figure. Officially, 60 percent of eligible Russians turned out to vote. I personally believe that there is good reason to be skeptical of that number, but even if it’s accurate, that means that at least 40 percent of the voters stayed home in spite of constant exhortations from the government to exercise their sacred duty as citizens to vote. Why were so many Russians so unenthusiastic about voting? My observations suggest only one answer: Voters didn't like their choices. Many people told me that they hated the ruling United Russia, which they viewed as corrupt. But they disliked the Communist party even more, and, meanwhile, parties like Just Russia were viewed as nothing more than arms of United Russia. There was a campaign to encourage people to vote for the Communists as a protest against United Russia. But many more people voted by not voting at all. Still others submitted unmarked ballots, which were tallied as spoiled and never counted.

Mr. Starobin also points to the weak support for Russia’s liberal party, Yabloko. Isn't their miniscule vote proof that “western liberalism” has no appeal in Russia? No, not really. That is like saying a boxer's failure to knock-out his opponent with one arm tied behind his back is proof that he can't box. On the surface, Yabloko appears to be a normal political party, one free to compete for power: After all, they have advertisements all over the place, on billboards, on television, and on the sides of buses.

But from my conversations with people in Russia, I learned that Yabloko is burdened by constant harassment. Indeed, its supporters take real risks in backing the party. This may explain why you will never find a Yabloko poster in a store or kiosk window (or any party's besides United Russia for that matter). One interlocutor told me that Yabloko is left alone when it is doing poorly in the polls, but that trouble begins once it starts to gain in popularity. Needless to say, the party has difficulty raising money under these circumstances. (For proof of that, one need only compare Yabloko's simple TV ads with United Russia's professionally-produced commercials.) Furthermore, under Russian elections law the votes of parties that fail to cross the 7 percent threshold are automatically given to the party that finishes first in the voting. Given that there were rumors that Yabloko wasn't going to make the 7 percent mark, many Russians calculated that a vote Yabloko was liable to become a vote for United Russia. Some observers of Russian politics suspect that the Kremlin allows Yabloko to survive as a weak party precisely so that it can cite it as "proof" of the Russian people's lack of interest in "western democracy." Interestingly, about a third of Russian nationals living in the U.S. voted for Yabloko, which I think is some indication of how well Yabloko would do under less constrained circumstances.

Yabloko, however, is not the only democratically oriented political party in Russia. The People's Freedom Party (PARNAS) led by former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov and former Prime Minister Vladimir Ryzhkov tried to register for the election with a list of 46,000 party members, but its application was denied. We have no way of knowing how well PARNAS would have done, but Nemtsov is widely considered a more charismatic and popular figure that Yabloko's leader Grigory Yavlinsky. (It’s no accident that Nemtsov is hardly ever allowed to appear on Russian television: The only time I saw him on Russian TV as was on a youth oriented game show on a music video channel. The kids correctly identified a very unflattering picture of him as belonging to a Russian politician.)

Furthermore, who says an opposition leader or party is needed in order to bring about democratic change? The Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt was not led by an “opposition leader.” They were led by ordinary citizens organizing online and taking to the streets. Similar things are happening now in Russia. Many of the demonstrators in Moscow last weekend did not belong to an organized party or movement. They were just ticked-off citizens who decided on their own to turn-out. Given how tech savvy Russia has become, I wouldn't be surprised to see more of that.

Another factor in these elections that Mr. Starobin does not account for are the laws governing political debate. In Russia, it is illegal to criticize one's electoral opponent. Americans bombarded with negative campaigning may think that sounds appealing, but they should think twice. The upshot of the law is that the incumbent ruling party as well as parties with extreme political views have a structural advantage. Since they are essentially immune from criticism, they can say whatever they want, no matter how crudely populist or blatantly untrue, without fear of being called out. Voters in general and impressionable young voters in particular are thus not forced to think too hard about what exactly it is that they are supporting.

Mr. Starobin also trots out the very tired cliché about how Russians were supposedly turned-off to democracy in the 1990s. This is a claim repeated so often by the Kremlin and its defenders that people seem to assume that it is true, but I’ve never seen evidence for it. I don't doubt that the Russian public wanted greater order in the 1990s, but when did they ever express their wish that the entire democratic process be ditched? I don't recall the Russian public being consulted on such things. Moreover, young Russians today were small children in the 1990s and are far more focused on the future than the past. The Kremlin is not going to be able to keep singing its song about the chaotic 1990s much longer. Russians are quickly getting tired of it.

Finally, Mr. Starobin resorts to what I refer to as “cultural determinism,” which is a popular sport where Russia is concerned. He’s not the first to suggest that Russians just aren't culturally capable of sustaining a democracy. But, historically, this is a claim that’s also been made of many other nations—from the Spanish and Italians to Latin Americans to Africans to Koreans and Japanese—that we now accept as naturally democratic. The fact is that the Russia of today is not the Russia of the czars and commissars. If you step into any Russian café you will see young people glued to their laptops and iPads; even in small rundown cities you can see billboards advertising tourist destinations like Thailand, Turkey, and Israel. Can anyone have imagined in Soviet days that provincial Russians would be taking beach trips to Israel? The fact is that Russians are more comfortable dealing with foreigners and more knowledgeable about the world than they used to be. This is why the Kremlin's more recent attempts to stir up anti-Western sentiment are falling flat: more and more Russians are coming to see themselves as part of the West. Russians are also more self-aware about the weaknesses of their own society: There is even a serious public discussion taking place about curbing sales of alcohol and tobacco.

I do agree with Mr. Starobin that the gains made by the Communists and the far-right LDPR are a cause for concern. However, I don't think that they are an indication that Russians are not interested in democracy. What they are is an indication that the Kremlin's political machinations have completely backfired. The Kremlin thought that they could control the Communists and the LDPR while shutting-out democratic opposition (who, weirdly, they brand as “extremists”). It is a strategy that has mostly been to the benefit of the Communists and the LDPR, spurring alarmed Russians to take to the streets. Emigration is also no longer the effective safety valve it once was: An increasing number of middle class Russians are asking why they should have to leave Russia to fulfill their goals is life.

The Kremlin itself seems to be realizing that its strategy is crumbling. In an interview this week Putin's political strategist Vladislav Surkov spoke of the need for a political party for what he called “irritated urban communities”. The Kremlin is now acting the part of a teenage boy that is coming to realize that he has been hanging out with the wrong crowd. Does he continue to align himself with radical parties and pray that they play nice with him, or does he make new friends?

Russia’s liberals may no longer be interested in playing nice. Prominent political figures, like billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov and former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, are now actively challenging the status quo. Prokhorov has already announced he is running against Putin. Kudrin, who is a very popular figure both in Russia and abroad is forming a new party. Kudrin is especially difficult for the Kremlin because he is a mentor of Putin’s, not an oligarch who can be attacked as a criminal in the pay of westerners. In my opinion, Prokhorov and Kudrin are the faces that are more likely to represent Russia’s political future.

In short, I think there are plenty of reasons to be hopeful about the prospects for a true Russian democracy. But I will readily admit that neither I nor Mr. Starobin can say for sure. That is the problem with holding flawed elections. The results don't really tell you all that is going on.

Mitchell Polman has participated in ten OSCE elections observation missions. His views are strictly his own and do not represent those of the OSCE mission as a whole.

Important question: How can we maintain global prosperity when natural resources are increasingly scarce, the planet is in increasing disrepair, and 3 billion people are expected to join the "middle class" by 2030?

According to a fascinating new report, the answer is a "circular economy," where materials and products are restored and regenerated much more widely, and where the emphasis is on leasing, renting, and sharing, rather than consumption and ownership.

"In a circular economy, products are designed for ease of reuse, disassembly and refurbishment, or recycling, with the understanding that it is the reuse of vast amounts of material reclaimed from end-of-life products, rather than the extraction of resources, that is the foundation of economic growth," the study says.

In fact, this is no wild-eyed dreaming. The report, which was commissioned by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation in the U.K., is written by McKinsey consultants, and sponsored by several large companies, including Renault, Cisco, and others. It is based on a careful analysis of current consumption trends, and lays out principles for generating economic value by reducing virgin-material inputs.

The report argues that the current "linear" model of "take-make-dispose" is likely to lead to ever-increasing prices and volatility in the next few years. About 65 billion tonnes (U.K.) of raw materials entered the global supply chain in 2010; and, by 2020, that number is expected to rise to about 82 billion tonnes.

"If no action is taken, high prices and volatility will likely be here to stay if growth is robust, populations grow and urbanise, and resource extraction costs continue to rise," it says.

The report argues that companies need a "better hedge" that "decouples revenues from material input." They need to speed the rate at which they collect up old products and reuse them, and develop ways of recuperating pre-used materials and components more efficiently. Doing so could reap large savings. European manufacturing alone could net $630 billion by 2025, it estimates.

The circular economy could reap large savings: European manufacturing alone could net $630 billion by 2025.

The report, which analyses several sectors in detail, finds that "complex medium-lived" products hold the greatest "circular economy potential." These include mobile phones and smartphones, light commercial vehicles, and washing machines.

Re-manufacturing mobile phones, for example, could cut costs by 50% if handsets were easier to dismantle, companies created "capacities for the reverse cycle," and there were more incentives for customers to return phones. Leasing, rather than selling, washing machines would also save money, increase profits, and cut CO2 output, the report finds. In all, "sweet-spot" sectors could see materials savings of 12% to 14% per year, it says.

The report notes that the shift to a circular economy is not only driven by resource scarcity. It is also enabled by improvements to IT that allow greater "traceability" in the supply chain, and changing attitudes among consumers, who are increasingly willing to accept new concepts, as seen with the growth of car sharing.

It says the circular economy could be a "major innovation engine," but will require support in the shape of taxation, incentives for innovation and entrepreneurship, and different guidelines and rules, including better accounting of "externalities" in company reports.

Although the authors admit they don’t have all the answers, they do put several layers of meat and gristle on the circular economy concept, laying out how it can be economically useful, and eminently practical. The report offers an awful lot of food for thought, and is well worth a read.

Pakistan has rejected an American bid for the release of Shakil Afridi, the doctor who helped the Central Intelligence Agency establish Osama bin Laden's whereabouts in the successful US raid to kill the al-Qaeda leader on Pakistani soil. Branded a "friend" by US lawmakers who want to give him citizenship, and a "national criminal" by the commission probing the incident, Afridi faces a possible trial for treason - and the death penalty. - Amir Mir (Feb 7, '12)

United States President Barack Obama used a prime-time slot before the Super Bowl to show a more serious commitment to engagement in diplomacy with Iran. While that makes good economic sense, it suggests he may be thinking a few moves ahead of the full-pelt sprint towards war - and playing a domestic political game. - Kaveh L Afrasiabi (Feb 7, '12)

As United States air and naval forces gather near Iran to protect US oil interests and menace Tehran's nuclear program, security gaps are opening in hotspots ranging from East and Southeast Asia to the AfPak region. While China and North Korea will avoid regional provocations due to domestic pressures, for the Taliban and al-Qaeda it is potentially too good an opportunity to miss. - Brian M Downing (Feb 7, '12)

The failure of the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution calling for regime change in Syria has increased calls in Washington for independent action on the country to influence the course of events on the ground. Such a move would force Syria ever closer toward civil war. - Samer Araabi (Feb 7, '12)

Fresh from kidnappings in Sudan and Egypt and an unprecedented evacuation from Libya last year, China is increasing confronted by problems over how to protect a growing band of workers abroad. From the Mekong to Africa, cooperation with other nations is possible, but Beijing must also look inward and decide which institution steps in when Chinese nationals are in trouble overseas. - Mathieu Duchatel and Bates Gill (Feb 7, '12)

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's visit to China highlights a significant warming of relations as the countries find common ground on issues ranging from the eurozone crisis to Libya. However, China is concerned that an easing of economic troubles will see Berlin and Europe betray Beijing's vision of a multipolar world and return to the high ground over human rights and democracy. - Jian Junbo (Feb 7, '12)

A new era of military planning is being launched to preserve an American planet - fewer troops, fewer full-frontal missions, no full-scale invasions, no more counter-insurgency: that's the order of a newly dawning day in which US might is going "offshore" to face China where the American military position can be strengthened without more giant bases or monster embassies. - Tom Engelhardt (Feb 7, '12)

A surge in the number of Chinese visitors to Egypt - tourists and expat workers - has given a new lease of life to Egypt's illegal ivory business, with US$50,000 trades on carved ivory items possible during a single bargaining session.- Cam McGrath

Backers of the Nabucco project, with a decision imminent by Azerbaijan on which pipeline to match with the Shah Deniz gas field, are belatedly seeking to take a gas-producing company on board. That may not be enough to rescue the increasingly costly European project. - Vladimir Socor

President Barack Obama rightly welcomed the decline in US unemployment with caution. Adults are struggling to find work, new jobs require few skills. Still, slow growth and stagnant incomes might be enough for voters to keep him in office. - Peter Morici

The growing US government bubble, pumped up by cheap money, will eventually end with a burst of inflation, falsified statistics, and the Federal Reserve attempting to depress the real value of the government's obligations - until hyperinflation of 100% per year has entered the American experience for the first time. - Martin Hutchinson

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues have generally been ignored in the Philippines, or worse, negatively portrayed to spice up mainstream media programmes.

Indigenous communities in Peru have a long list of comments and objections to the proposed regulations for the law governing prior consultation on initiatives affecting their territories.

Helen Clarke, the former prime minister of New Zealand, recalled a situation a few years ago when within the less affluent suburbs of her country, youth gang violence had become a serious problem.

When the world's rising population hit the historic seven billion milestone last October, the United Nations predicted that population growth will continue to increase, reaching an estimated 9.3 billion by the year 2050.

When the world's rising population hit the historic seven billion milestone last October, the United Nations predicted that population growth will continue to increase, reaching an estimated 9.3 billion by the year 2050.

Fifty years ago when Sierra Leone gained independence after 150 years of colonial rule, with it came a feeling of optimism that along with a newfound control of its governance, the country would profit from its ample endowment of natural resources, like timber, fish, minerals and oil. Instead, in the last 50 years, the country has had 13 military coups and an 11-year civil war that left the economy in ruins and the country heavily reliant on foreign donor funding.