Russia: Other Points of View

THE CAUCASUS EMIRATE RETURNS TO THE 'FAR ENEMY'

ISLAM, ISLAMISM, AND POLITCS IN EURASIA REPORT, No. 4, December 10, 2009

By Gordon M. Hahn

Monterey Institute of International Studies

Introduction

The past two years have seen a gradual and substantial escalation in the Caucasus Emirate mujahedin’s capacity and audacity. The CE has focused on carrying out jihadi terrorist operations across the North Caucasus against both the local ‘apostate’ regimes and the occupying forces of the Russian ‘infidel’ ­ that is, the ‘near enemy’ ­ rather than striking against the ‘far enemy’ in Moscow and other Russian regions. After over a five-year hiatus against attacking civilians, CE amir Doka Abu Usman Umarov declared in April that the mujahedin would no longer be avoiding civilian casualties, justified attacking Russian civilians on the basis of their support for Moscow’s counter-insurgency efforts and policies towards Islam, and bringing attacks to all of Russian territory (see IIREP, No, 3). On December 2nd the CE claimed responsibility for the November 27th bombing of the high-speed luxury Moscow-St.Petersburg train ‘Nevskii Express.’ If the CE’s claim is to be believed ­ and the CE does appear to be the perpetrator ­ then this marks the promised return to jihadi attacks on the ‘far enemy’, especially Russia’s Moscow and St. Petersburg elites and infrastructure across the country. This shift could have implications for international security as well.

ABKHAZIA versus GEORGIA: Implications for U.S. Policy toward Russia

REPRINTS

Johnson's Russia List

By George Enteen, professor emeritus of Russian history, Penn State University 

Most Americans have never heard of Abkhazia; if they have, the response is 'O yes, that's one of the territories Russia has taken over from Georgia.'  Even some Russians will say, 'O yes, that's ours again.' They are both wrong.  Abkhazia is a small nation striving to maintain its independence.  But does it matter to us, Americans?  Our policy matters vitally to Abkhazians, because their status and destiny will be affected by American policies.   It matters indirectly to the United States; affecting our stance toward Russia and the scope of collaboration on a host of international issues that affect our security.

MEDVEDEV'S POLICE REFORM

There They Go Again: The Economist Distorts Medvedev’s MVD Reform Proposals

By Gordon M. Hahn

The U.S. mainstream media (MSM) continues to distort politics in Russia.  The recent trend to portray President Dmitrii Medvedev’s order for fundamental reform of the corrupt Ministry of Internal Affairs as a superficial initiative is a case in point.  One example was Newsweek’s March 8, 2010 article “Moscow's Phony Liberal” by Owen Matthews and Anna Nemtsova. 

A more recent example of this biased reporting trend comes from The Economist. In its March 20-26 issue this is how it described the MVD reforms: “Dmitry Medvedev…called for reform of the interior ministry. Yet this reform involves cutting police numbers by 20% and centralising control over regional police.” (“Police brutality in Russia - Cops for hire,” The Economist, March 20-26, 2010.)  Not only does The Economist denigrate the scale of the reform proposed by an increasingly emboldened Medvedev, but implies that, if anything, it is counterreform. This spin can only be driven by lack of information or a desire to disinform.

ISLAM, ISLAMISM, AND POLITCS IN EURASIA REPORT

by Gordon Hahn,

Monterey Terrorism Research and Education Program (MonTREP)

CE AMIR DOKU ABU USMAN UMAROV’S FEBRUARY INTERVIEW

Caucasus Emirate (CE) amir Doku Abu Usman Umarov gave an interview in February which was posted on several CE sites including Kavkaz tsentr and Hunafa.com and transcribed and posted on Kavkaz tsentr in march.  In the interview Umarov vows to liberate once Muslim lands in Krasnodar krai, Astrakhan and the Volga.  He also stated that the CE has “10 thousand, 20 thousand, even 30 thousand mujahedin” but lacks the capacity to train and equip all those who wish to fight.

To access the full report, please click here Download KAVKAZJIHAD_MonTREP_IIPER_11_23Mar2010

WASHINGTON LUCKED OUT

REPRINTS

 The National Interest

March 22, 2010

by Doug Bandow

Ukraine recently elected Viktor Yanukovich president. Reviled as “pro-Russian” by American policy makers, Yanukovich could prove to be the best Ukrainian leader that Washington could hope for. He is looking to the West economically but has credibility in Moscow and, most importantly, does not want to join NATO, which would entangle the U.S. militarily against Russia.

Five years ago the Bush administration and U.S.-funded NGOs promoted the so-called Orange Revolution, through which Viktor Yushchenko bested Yanukovich, who was tainted by charges of electoral fraud. The former presented himself as pro-Western, but spent five years fighting with his allies and driving away voters. In January he received just 5.4 percent of the vote in the original election round and failed to make the run-off, which was won by Yanukovich.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Local elections. In Sunday’s local elections United Russia didn’t do as well as usual. No doubt, this will be analysed to death according to the writer’s preconceptions. I say there are three possibilities 1) a fluke; 2) United Russia, for some reason, didn’t amplify its results; 3) a level of dissatisfaction with local bosses. It is too soon to say which is which and whether this is a trend or not.  

Pushing on a rope. In a meeting Medvedev emphasised that his instructions must be carried out. His complaint was indicative: “I regularly receive reports from the Cabinet, the regions, and other organisations, these reports are often not particularly meaningful.” A common problem in Russia and contrary to the assumption so many have that everything is Russia goes as planned by the cabal at the top. Shades of “We hear that Putin has promised it to you, so go and ask Putin”.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

People power. For years Russian big wheels have been whizzing down roads ignoring the rules confident that, should there be an accident, their connections will help the police to come to the correct conclusion. As it were. In Irkutsk in December, the daughter of the regional election committee chairwoman ploughed into two pedestrians. No charges were laid. A couple of weeks ago, the car of a LUKoil executive killed two people in a head-on collision; the victims were blamed. This was the last straw and a strong public opinion movement sprang up. Two observations (in addition to the obvious one) here. First, these protests are made possible by “new media” – YouTube, social networking, cellphone cameras. Second, an organisation of car owners called Freedom of Choice has mobilised in other cases and stands ready to go into action quickly. This is what is called civil society. For those who are immediately going to interpret this as signs of disquiet with Medvedev, the protesters are entirely in step with his pronouncements. But it is also a challenge for him to put his efforts where his mouth is; as a public appeal to him said: “If you take the case under your personal control and punish the person responsible for the crash, you will prove your commitment to the fight against corruption.” Yesterday Medvedev ordered an investigation. The Irkutsk campaign did force the police to re-consider.

RUSSIA'S EXPANDING INFLUENCE

REPRINTS

This report is republished with express permission of STRATFOR http://www.stratfor.com

Stratfor, March 8, 2010

Summary

The United States’ involvement in the Middle East — wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a standoff with Iran over its nuclear program — has given Russia an opportunity to expand its influence in the former Soviet Union. Moscow has already had some success in consolidating control over what it considers the four most crucial countries, but it would like to push back against the West in several other countries if it has time to do so before Washington’s attention returns to Eurasia.

Editor’s note: This introduction launches a four-part series in which STRATFOR will examine Russia’s efforts to exert influence beyond its borders.

IT'S TIME TO INVITE RUSSIA TO JOIN NATO

REPRINTS

 Der Spigel, March 8, 2010

Trans-Atlantic security needs have changed fundamentally in the last two decades. The East-West confrontation has ended, and Moscow now shares many interests with NATO. It is time for the alliance to open its doors to Russia, say German defense experts Volker Rühe, Klaus Naumann, Frank Elbe and Ulrich Weisser.

Former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt has noted with concern that many of today's politicians have too little knowledge of history. He could well have added that those same politicians are also frighteningly deficient when it comes to understanding strategic and security issues. In Germany, there is no significant discussion about the future of NATO, its self-image, its strategy for the future and the question of how Russia can be included. Berlin is not showing any opinion leadership, nor is it spurring international debate. This has been a disappointment for other members of the alliance, who are asking themselves whether the Germans are afraid of the debate or are simply no longer capable of contributing to it in a forward-looking way.

Europe's security, though, remains a constant task, and new challenges require different responses than in the past. The Euro-Atlantic region needs peace and stability at home, but it also needs protection against external threats. Ultimately, the emergence of a multi-polar world requires finding a way to offset the political, economic and strategic dynamics of the large Asian powers.

Continue reading

RUSSIAN ANTI-AMERICANISM EXAGGERATED

ARTICLE CRITIQUE

 Critique of Ariel Cohen and Helle C. Dale, “Russian Anti-Americanism: A Priority target for U.S. Public Diplomacy,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder # 2373, 24 February 2010  

by Gordon Hahn

In a recent Heritage Foundation paper (to be found at end of this note) Ariel Cohen and Helle Dale propose initiating a public diplomacy campaign to counter anti-Americanism in Russia.  It is to some extent true, as the authors state, that the Russian government engages in “anti-U.S. propaganda at home and abroad,”  not unlike hat I found in US mainstream media like the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and others  However, the authors’ tone and assessment exaggerates the substance, purposefulness, strength, and goals of Russian anti-American public diplomacy.  

First, it remains unclear just how effective anti-Americanism is and whether the level of its effectiveness warrants large expenditures to counter it.  For the most part, Russian propaganda in this direction is preaching to the domestic and foreign choir.