Russia: Other Points of View

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Freedom of Opinion. We hear a great deal about how Russia’s media is not free. Since the discussion is usually only about the “old media” and not about the “new media”, a distorted picture is given about citizen access to information, which is  really important. But the “old media” is dying everywhere for a variety of reasons. A recent poll (JRL/2009/21) gives some numbers on Russian access to the Internet: daily use is claimed by 22% of the population; naturally Moscow (49%) and St Petersburg (40%) are the highest. This site suggests Russian “Internet penetration” is about half the European average and about one-third of the North American average. But the main point is that the Internet is free – there is no government control and once you’re on it, you’re on it, whether you’re in Ottawa or Omsk. So assessments of Russians’ access to different opinions ought to take into account the fact that about a third of Russians say they use the Net at least once a week and that number is, of course, growing all the time.

SPINNING RUSSIA AND TELENOR

ROPV CONTRIBUTORS

By William Dunkerley 

When U.S. President Barack Obama first met President Dmitry Medvedev in April, almost two-thirds of Americans were thinking negative thoughts about Russia. Now, less than two weeks away from Obama's meeting with Medvedev in Moscow, the Kremlin is showing new concern about Russia's image abroad. Indeed, the importance of external PR has been elevated by making it a responsibility of presidential chief of staff Sergei Naryshkin.

What can Naryshkin possibly do to change the United States' negative views of Russia? Is simply putting a better spin on things really going to change anyone's mind about anything?

The answer is that it just might -- if it is done correctly. For many years I have studied the ups and downs of U.S. attitudes toward Russia, and what I found is that there seems to be a responsive relationship between attitudinal change and three external factors: leadership initiatives, geopolitical events and negative PR attacks.

UKRAINE: A UNION STATE WITH RUSSIA?

REPRINTS

Would the Real Ukraine Please Stand Up?

by Graham Stack, Russia Profile

The Ukrainian People May Want a Union State with Russia, but Few Russians Wish to Join the Ukraine

KIEV/ Opinion polls show that Ukraine is a Russian-leaning country, very different from the one described by Western media and the Ukrainian foreign policy elite. “If we were to fantasize, and pretend that [the Russian Prime Minister] Vladimir Putin would run for the post of Ukrainian president, then according to opinion poll results he would win right off,” sais Alexei Lyashenko, an analyst at Kiev’s Research & Branding (R&B) polling institute. “His only serious competitor would be [Russian President] Dmitry Medvedev.”

The R&B poll published on May 25 shows that for all the rhetoric about the Westward-bound Ukraine breaking free of Russia’s malignant influence and Putin’s imperialism, the reality on the ground is very different. “In fact, Vladimir Putin’s high rating in Ukraine is nothing new, but quite steady,” Lyashenko added. “It was over 50 percent even during the ‘Orange Revolution’.”

RUSSIA'S LIMOUSINE LIBERALS

REPRINTS 

By Anatol Lieven, New America Foundation

The National Interest Online | June 10, 2009

Over the last several days, two pieces attacking the realist approach to Russia were published in prominent media outlets in the United States and Russia. One, co-authored by Lev Gudkov of the Levada Center, Igor Klyamkin, vice president of the Liberal Mission Foundation, Georgy Satarov, president of the Russian NGO the Indem Foundation and Lilia Shevtsova, a senior associate at the Carnegie Moscow Center was was featured on the editorial page of the Washington Post. The other, by Andrei Piontkovsky, a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute, was released in the Moscow Times.

I read these pieces concerning the moves to improve relations between America and Russia with a profound feeling of depression. This is not just because there is something bizarre and twisted about pro-Western Russian liberals attacking the recommendations of the Hart-Hagel Commission or statesmen such as Henry Kissinger and James Baker. It is also because their criticism serves as a mouthpiece for the agendas of the most bitterly anti-Russian and geopolitically aggressive liberal interventionists and neocons who help maintain tensions between Russia and the West--and actually between the United States and the rest of the world.

FALSE CHOICES FOR RUSSIA

ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Response to Washington Post "False Choices for Russia" by Lev Gudkov, Igor Klyamkin, Georgy Satarov and Lilia Shevtsova, June 9, 2009 

by Gordon Hahn

The article reviewed below is yet another in the Washington Post’s persistently one-sided coverage of Russia. It was written by Lev Gudkov (director of Levada Center, an independent polling and research organization), Igor Klyamkin (vice president of the Liberal Mission Foundation), Georgy Satarov (president of the Russian nongovernmental organization Indem Foundation and former advisor to late Russian president Boris Yeltsin), and Lilia Shevtsova (senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Moscow Center).  The article may be part of a perhaps orchestrated campaign marshaled by U.S. hawks on Russia deploying Russian liberals against those in the U.S. arguing for a more balanced approach towards Russia than that pursued by two successive American presidents.  The goal of the neo-realists is to establish a U.S.-Russian relationship that will facilitate Russian support of key American foreign policy goals.  In particular, a less aggressive Western policy in the former USSR should be exchanged for Russian assistance on non-proliferation issues, most notably the Koran and Iranian nuclear programs, and the war against jihadism, especially in Afghanistan.  Their liberal (and conservative) opponents in the U.S. propose continuation of past policies: NATO expansion into the former USSR region and an emphasis on Russia’s lack of democracy. The reader will note that the Russian liberals’ article below only mentions NATO expansion in passing and focuses instead on the Kremlin’s soft authoritarianism.

The article reviewed below is part of a global debate among Russians and Russia observers that began apparently with a March 31st article in the Russian daily Kommersant by Boris Sidorov.  The campaign was carried forth in nearly identical pieces by Andrei Pitontivsky in a June 4^th Moscow Times article and the piece reviewed below.  A liberal-realist response came on June 10 from Anatol Lieven on www.nationalinterest.com.  Lieven’s response was rebutted by Paul Goble using a June 15 Grani.ru article by Russian commentator Irina Pavlova.

To access the full analysis, please click here Download WP_Shevtsova_9_June_09

JIHADISM IN RUSSIA

ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Response to New York Times "Russia’s Knotty Policies on Islam, Mirrored in Trial" by Michael Schwirtz, June 3, 2009

by Gordon Hahn

The New York Times has published yet another U.S. mainstream media article on Russia’s Muslim regions that completely ignores” jihadi” violence in Russia and focuses instead on the Russian state’s violation of Muslims’ rights.  To be sure, the Russian state is not yet democratic.  Its soft authoritarian regime fairly frequently violates political, civil, and human rights of citizens, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, and the media should on occasion cover this issue.  However, since the tragic Beslan school massacre masterminded by Chechen, Ingush and Ossetian jihadists in September 2004 – nearly a full five years ago – not one U.S. mainstream media outlet has produced a single article focusing on Russia’s jihadists, their ideology, strategy, tactics, or record of violence and violations of political, civil, and human rights.  Why is this?

During the past five years period, jihadists (Ichkeria) from the ‘Chechen Republic’, who now call their movement the ‘Caucasus Emirate’, have carried out thousands of attacks and killed thousands of Russian civilians, civilian officials, and security, military, police servicemen and officers.  They have declared jihad on the U.S., the United Kingdom, and Israel and have published the vilest of anti-Semitic, anti-Western, and anti-Russian articles on their websites.  They lend moral, political, personnel, and technical support to jihadists fighting American and other Western forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Despite all this, the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, and The Economist have totally ignored Russia's jihadi threat. As with all U.S. mainstream media articles on Russia’s Muslims and and Muslim republics, if the jihadists are mentioned at all, the present New York Times article mentions them only in passing and then quickly moves on to detail the Russian state’s less than ideal treatment of its Muslims.

To access the full analysis, please click here Download NYT_Jihadism_Schwirtz_3_June_09

RESET POLICY TOWARDS RUSSIA

ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Response to Foreign Policy "Rethink Before you Reset" by Daniel Klimmage, May 26, 2009

by Gordon M Hahn 

This article is a rehashing of the view that Russia is an eternal threat to the West.  The author’s feigned academic objectivity melts away quickly with the most cursory examination of the facts.  The possibility that the U.S. may have committed mistakes in its relations with Russia since the end of the Cold War is not even entertained.  Instead of the U.S. offering to reset its relations together with Moscow, the author argues that it is in fact Moscow that has controlled and damaged the downhill direction of the relationship after the Cold War and must change policies.  Fundamental issues such as NATO expansion are ignored and dangerous policies such as building U.S. military bases in Georgia or Turkmenistan are broached.

To access the full analysis, please click here Download FP_Klimmage_May_26_09 

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

by Patrick Armsrong

North Caucasus. Medvedev visited Makhachkala, Dagestan yesterday for a Security Council meeting and stated that “Overall, 308 crimes of a terrorist nature have been committed so far in the North Caucasus in 2009.” His solution was a combination of security activity and amelioration of “root causes” among which he named “low living standards, high unemployment and massive, horrifyingly widespread corruption.” A plan was apparently evolved at the meeting: we shall see. The question is: to what extent are the attacks on police and officials (8 in the last week!) a product of desperation and a habit of killing after all the warfare there; “normal” (in the Russian context) “bizness” disputes; or the operations of jihadists? Whatever the cause may be, and it’s likely a combination, the situation is growing slowly worse. It is a very explosive place: quick roundup at JRL/2009/109/12. Another reason, by the way, to try and keep a rein on Saakashvili’s military ambitions: the last time Georgia tried forcibly to incorporate the unwilling people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, fighters from the North Caucasus, seeking the re-creation of their “Mountaineer Republic”, fought there. They brought their fight home and, especially, to Chechnya. Chechnya attracted a professional jihadist named Khattab who was instrumental in causing the second war. Moscow does not want a repeat performance.

Pikalyovo. The transcript of Putin’s meeting in the town is worth reading as an illustration of many of Russia’s problems “in the weeds”: a Soviet-era unified plant complex was broken up in the privatisations; maybe there was some ripping off; as the sole employer, it had large responsibilities for the town’s social welfare system; the world economy reduced demand for its products; the workers exhausted normal channels and only got attention after blocking the highway; the issue required the personal intervention of A Boss. It is also an example of Putin’s style and authority. By the way, he did not call Deripaska a “cockroach” as has been sloppily  reported (see the end of the transcript). This is not the first time Putin has been wilfully misquoted – see, for example “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” which  is  endlessly  recycled to  prove his  evil.

GEORGIA'S INVASION IGNORED AGAIN BY THE WASHINGTON POST

ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Response to Washington Post Editorial "Another Summer in Georgia", June 4, 2009

by Gordon Hahn

The article reviewed herein is a standard, one-sided Washington Post presentation replete with inaccurate, unsupported and false claims.  It is distorted by the gross omission of key facts in order to whitewash Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and blame all problems in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Georgia itself on Moscow.  The article reads as if Saakashvili himself or one of his PR agents had written it. It is particularly pernicious in repeating without qualification the highly questionable Georgian claim that Russian forces began the August 2008 war by invading Georgia on August 7 when existing evidence suggests quite the opposite: that Russian forces entered South Ossetia on August 8 after Saakashvili gave an order on August 7 to invade South Ossetia and Georgian forces began an indiscriminate artillery assault on civilians and Russian and Ossetian peacekeeping forces in Tskhinvali. 

To access the full analysis, please click here Download WP_Georgia_4_June_09

MUTINY AGAINST GEORGIAN PRESIDENT SAAKASHVILI

Russia Media Watch Comparative Media Analysis

The general assumption in the West, or certainly in the United States, is that U.S. mainstream media outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, being free of government control, provide readers with accurate and unbiased coverage of foreign and domestic politics.  Russia Media Watch’s (RMW) writ is to reveal the continuous biases and inaccuracies in U.S. mainstream media reporting on Russia. 

One of the exaggerations that U.S. mainstream media purvey is that Russian media are completely controlled by the government – or at least that Russians do not have access to independent objective news reporting and analysis.  This point is usually made by referring to the federal government’s control of all nationwide television channels.  However, as RMW has repeatedly pointed out, Russians have access to objective and/or independent radio stations (for example, Ekho Moskvy or Echo of Moscow), newspapers, and Internet. 

To underscore this point, we offer two articles – one by the U.S. mainstream New York Times and another from the Russian newspaper Kommersant – covering the alleged mutiny against Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili at a Georgian military base on May 5.