Russia: Other Points of View

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

NATO-Russia. Lots of things are rumoured: see this in the Independent for example. On a personal note I feel a lot of schadenfreude here. When I was working for the government, I wrote many briefing notes saying that NATO should listen to what Moscow was saying and take it seriously; not necessarily agree, but seriously think about it. But no, NATO light-heartedly (not my expression but George Kennan’s) went ahead and expanded here, there and everywhere, broke its promises, enjoyed its adventures, all under the complacent assumption  that Russia was negligible and its objections could be dismissed as mere self-interest, or spun as threats. No more. NATO has discovered that it really needs Russia in Afghanistan.  But, NATO has to learn that words have meanings: the Secretary General cannot say, one week, that Georgia will be a member of NATO one day, and on another that it wants to have a “true strategic partnership” with Russia. Georgia, under present management, is not acceptable to Moscow: there are reasons why this is so. NATO must make the, apparently difficult, attempt to understand those reasons. Nonetheless, the movement is encouraging: after all, NATO and Russia share the essential element of a military alliance – which is common enemies.

EXILED RUSSIAN DISSIDENT YURY LUZHKOV CONDEMNS PUTIN'S CORRUPT, STALINIST REGIME

REPRINTS

by Anatoly Karlin

Sublime Oblivion, Oct 25, 2010

This is a headline in a Western newspaper you might be reading in the not-too-distant future.

Back in October 8th, ten days after Luzhkov’s dismissal from the Moscow mayoralty by Medvedev, I predicted that “within the next 3 months Luzhkov is going to get hit with corruption charges and will either go on trial or seek political asylum in the West”. Today news comes that the corrupt, gay-bashing former Mayor turned up to the British Embassy in Moscow to apply for a visa.

Figures linked to Luzhkov have variously denied these as rumors (such as a spokesman for the construction firm Inteko owned by Luzhkov’s wife Baturina) or claimed he only wanted to visit family in the UK (Iosif Kobzon, a singer and Luzhkov’s friend). But that is only to be expected.

Corruption investigations against the former Mayor’s circle are stepping up, and Luzhkov certainly hasn’t helped himself by portraying his ouster as evidence of the “return of Stalinism” and censorship and repression. (Of course, the city’s corruption-reporting journalists and members of the LGBT minority that he harassed as Mayor might beg to differ).

Continue reading

LOSING EUROPE TO RUSSIA?

REPRINTS

New York Times

October 25, 2010

Will the U.S. Lose Europe to Russia?

By JOHN VINOCUR

PARIS  The United States used to call wayward members of NATO back to the reservation with a whistle or a shout. It decided what was deviation from doctrine, and that decision was pretty much law. 

When the Obama administration stamped its foot this time, no one snapped to attention. 

Rather, Germany and France, meeting with Russia in Deauville, northern France, last week, signaled that they planned to make such three-cornered get-togethers on international foreign policy and security matters routine, and even extend them to inviting other "partners"  pointing, according to diplomats from two countries, to Turkey becoming a future participant. 

That can look like an effort to deal with European security concerns in a manner that keeps NATO, at least in part, at a distance. And it could seem a formula making it easier for Russia to play off – absolutely no novelty here  the European allies against the United States, or NATO and the European Union, against one another. 

ISLAM, ISLAMISM AND POLITICS IN EURASIA REPORT No. 27, OCT 20, 2010

By Gordon Hahn

Monterey Institute of International Studies

CONTENTS:

• CE TERRORISM STATISTICS FOR SEPTEMBER AND FOR JANUARY THROUGH SEPTEMBER, 2010
• ANNOUNCEMENT

To access the full report, click here  Download KAVKAZJIHAD_MonTREP_IIPER_27_Oct_2010

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

The Third Turn. Earlier this week Medvedev was in France talking with Sarkozy and Merkel. It doesn’t look as if anything much was decided but it was another step in Europe’s change of attitude towards Russia, moving into what I call the “third turn” (during the 1990s Russia was seen as a backward younger brother and, from 2000-2008, as an enemy). From the press conference. Sarkozy: “We are certain that Russia, Germany and France share common positions in many respects”; “we live in a new world, a world of friendship between Russia and Europe.” Merkel: “we need to put relations between Russia and NATO on a rational track. After all, we face some of the same threats in the world today.” “Rational” – interesting choice of word: are we to assume the previous policy was irrational? The subject of Georgia came up and Sarkozy said: “At the same time, Georgia also should make a commitment not to use force. It would be good if our Russian friends agreed to the presence of European observers on these territories.” Medvedev said he would attend next month’s NATO summit. The next day Medvedev said that those in Russia who thought of NATO was hostile to Russia were making a mistake. No news here, by the way: NATO’s behaviour is officially regarded as a danger – ie not yet a threat – and Russian military deployments show no fear of attack from the west. But, nonetheless, it’s a change of flavour: looking at it from the other side as it were. The NATO summit might, therefore, actually contribute something to stability.

DEMOCRACY IN RUSSIA

ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Response to the Washington Post's "A Chance for Democracy in Russia?" by Fred Hiatt, October 19, 2010

By Gordon Hahn

The commentary reviewed below was written by the Washington Post’s editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt.  He (and/or higherups) never permits oped pieces to appear on the Post’s editorial page that say anything positive about Russia or criticizes views, countries, or jihadi terrorist movements opposed to Moscow.  Here, he uses Kasyanov to put forward his own views and leaves much out of both his description of Kasyanov as well as of Russia’s contemporary political scene.

To access the full analysis,  click Download WP_Hiatt_19_Oct_2010

 

MEDVEDEV'S INVESTIGATON REFORMS: TOWARDS THE RULE OF LAW?

COMMENTARY

by Gordon Hahn 

Russian President Dmitrii Medvedev has begun what could be a far-reaching reform of the investigative system by making the Investigative Committee (SK) fully independent.  This, along with the creation of an undivided investigative apparatus, is something Russian democrats have been urging for years.  The divided investigation system, spread across the largely unreformed siloviki departments [MVD, FSB, Narcotics Control Service (FSKN), and the General Procuracy], has to date stifled the establishment of the rule of law in Russia.  In particular, it has facilitated the various siloviki clans’ seizures of properties and the manipulation of politically sensitive criminal cases.

In September Medvedev finally took the step that had been bandied about in Russia for years; he separated the Investigation Committee (SKP) of the General Procuracy (GP) from the GP, creating Russia’s first independent investigative body.  The new independent SK will be subordinated to the president, but investigative functions for certain kinds of cases will remain temporarily with the MVD (also undergoing reform), FSKN, and FSB. 

Earlier, Medvedev had decreed that beginning on 1 January 2011, all tax crime investigations will be transferred from the MVD to the SKP (Andrei Susarov, “Popytka nadavit’ na prezidenta,” Vremya novostei, 28 December 2009.)  In his statement announcing the decision to split the SK from the GP, Medvedev stated that that “investigative bodies at other departments will remain independent for the time being...in future, other decisions may be made, including giving all or most cases to the Investigations Committee” (my emphasis) (Aleksandra Samarina, “Bastrykin priblizilsya k prezidentu,” Nezavisimaya gazeta, 24 September 2010 and “Bastrykin uletel ot Chaiki,” Vremya novostei, 24 September 2010). 

REIMAGINING EURASIA

REPRINTS

An Opportunity to Reimagine Eurasia

By Samuel Charap, Alexandros Petersen

October 14, 2010

National Interest

Despite the smiles, hearty handshakes and declarations of partnership, President Obama’s meeting with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in New York last month was actually a symptom of waning U.S. influence in Eurasia. And neither that encounter nor the recent visits to Baku by the secretaries of state and defense will accomplish much of anything in terms of advancing long-term U.S. interests until the administration comes up with a strategy for engaging the countries of the region.

The extraordinary high-level attention paid to Azerbaijan is a result of that country’s recent temper-tantrum approach to foreign policy. Due to a variety of snubs both imagined and real (in particular the decision not to engage Baku as the United States pursued normalization of relations between Azerbaijan’s archrival Armenia and its ally Turkey), Aliyev felt his country was being overlooked by the Obama administration. So he decided that the best way to get U.S. attention was to lash out, specifically by putting the screws on the Turks to scupper the Armenia rapprochement, cozying up to Moscow on energy deals and threatening to pull the plug on the overflight agreement that allows the U.S. military a crucial corridor to Afghanistan.

Continue reading

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

UK-Russia. The British Foreign Secretary visited Moscow yesterday with the intention of improving relations. There are two principal irritants: the UK gives shelter to Berezovskiy and Zakayev, both of whom Moscow wants for various crimes and the UK wants Lugovoy in connection with the Litvinenko death (although the one Western reporter who has seen the evidence the British supplied is scornful of it). If anything actually comes of this apparent attempt to mend relations, Berezovskiy might be advised to start packing his bags.

Defence spending. A Russian newspaper quotes the Chairman of the Duma Defence Committee on planned spending for the Armed Forces. Including R&D, this year’s will be US$16.3 billion, rising to $38.8 billion in 2013. The money will be spread around: new ICBMs and SLBMs (the Bulava finally had a successful test), fighter aircraft, ships for the Black Sea Fleet and command-and-control systems for the Ground Forces (the last two are lessons learned in the Ossetia war). 13-15% will be reserved for modernising existing equipment.

AGAIN ON RUSSIAN HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONTEXT

COMMENTARY

by Gordon Hahn 

In an October 5th Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article, Robert Orttung, president of the Resource Security Institute, and Christopher Walker, director of studies at Freedom House, published the only kind of article on Russia politics allowed in the U.S. mainstream media print. It was yet another article on Russia's, albeit, less than sterling human rights record.  Specifically, the article rehashes the unsolved murders of Novaya gazeta journalists Anna Politkovskaya and Natalya Estemirova and criticizes Russia authorities’ use of slander laws to silence critics like Oleg Orlov of the Russian human rights organization ‘Memorial’.  To be sure, these issues deserve some attention, but compared to what?

The issue was the unsolved murders of journalists and the authorities’ efforts to muzzle the media.  The focus of the three activists mentioned in the WSJ article – Politkovskaya, Estemirova, and Orlov – has been the violation of human rights in Chechnya.  But in Chechnya and the North Caucasus the main violator of human rights is not the federal or even local authorities.