by Patrick Armstrong
Some attention has been paid to an address to the Russian people on 23 November in which President Medvedev set out Russia’s possible reaction should its concerns about the European Missile Defence system not be accommodated. For once, the Western media reported it reasonably accurately with most news outlets echoing the BBC’s heading: “Medvedev sees arms race if missile shield not agreed”. A conditional statement: if this, then that.
COMMENTARY
by Gordon Hahn
Several events this week prompt a reconsideration of a potential deal breaker in the U.S.-Russian ‘reset’ or thaw, and the failed policy of NATO expansion without Russia which was adopted by the Clinton Administration in the mid-1990s.
First, the anniversary of the Five-Day August 2008 Georgian-Russian War passed with Georgia still deprived of 30 percent of its perceived territory––and Abkhazia and South Ossetiya set on a long road to real independence. This was the price Georgia paid for its own hubris and the West’s clumsy interference in a region it poorly understands. That interference was driven by the policy of NATO expansion, which militarized American and Western democracy-promotion efforts and piqued Russian resistance to them.
In addition, American policy was driven in large part by the anti-Russian biases of many U.S. post-sovietologists, analysts, and journalists when it comes to assessing Russia’s relations with its own minorities and former Soviet nationalities. Often, these relations are caricatured on the model of the white hats and the black hats. The Russians are cast as the nasty black-hated nationalistic imperialists, while the peoples like Georgians and their nationalist leaders are cast as the good guys, ‘beacons of democracy.’
Continue reading "NATO EXPANSION, AND U.S.-RUSSIA RELATIONS IN THE 'NEAR ABROAD'" »
REPRINTS
by Andrei Tsygankov
Since the reset button in U.S.-Russian relations has been pressed, Russia and the West have learned to cooperate on multiple issues from Iran and Afghanistan to nuclear arms control. Still, the momentum for improving Western ties with Russia seems to be caught in a holding pattern. It seems that both sides are increasingly frustrated with each other's policies.
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen recently condemned Russia for its sharp reaction to NATO's plans for a missile defense system in Europe. The Kremlin threatened to develop new intercontinental ballistic missiles that could spark a new arms race. Clearly frustrated, Rasmussen chided Russia's outdated thinking. "We are not a threat to Russia, we will not attack Russia, we will not undermine the security of Russia," he said.
The Kremlin, however, maintains that NATO's missile defense plans could undermine Russia's security as soon as 2020, when the system's fourth phase will be deployed. Moscow is suspicious of the fact that in response to the concerns it voices, it only receives vague, rhetorical assurances and other brushoffs.
by Vlad Sobell
When my son was a toddler, he believed that the wind was caused by trees moving their “arms” (that is, branches) and that the wind would stop once the trees kept their “arms” still. The proposition that the recent attempt at US-Russia détente – unnecessarily given the fashionable term “reset” – is driven by the will of President Obama, or even by the “pragmatism” of such minor officials/academics as Michael McFaul, Washington’s next ambassador to Russia, is surely just as childish.
Any adult with an ounce of understanding of history and the basic laws of economics knows that America’s post-war empire has fatally overextended itself and that it needs urgently to adjust its global ambitions in line with the brutal reality of its economic bankruptcy. A state which has managed to run up unsustainable fiscal deficits and sovereign debt and whose political system, moreover, is so dysfunctional that it does not yet understand the seriousness of its condition (never mind being able to begin to deliver a credible way out of the crisis) is not equipped to embark on another Cold War with Russia.
by Patrick Armstrong
Police Reform. According to the Minister, one third of the top police officers did not survive the screening and have been dismissed – 119 of 335. That is not a trivial percentage and to my mind shows the effort is real. The idea was that the senior officers would be vetted by the Presidential Administration and juniors by the seniors – perhaps it would have been smarter to wait until the seniors’ vetting was over before beginning the juniors. But the effort isn’t over yet.
Corruption. It is almost a cliché in certain circles that Medvedev’s struggle against corruption has failed. Readers are invited, however, to consider this account of a successful effort to stop (corrupt) markups in medical equipment prices. That’s not been a failure. And, by the way, as to the other cliché that anti-corruption is Medvedev’s thing (and by implication not Putin’s), here’s Putin three years ago: asked “Which of Russia’s problems have you found the most wearying and difficult to resolve over these last eight years?”, he answered “Corruption”. Same program, different phase.
by Patrick Armstrong
Court activity. Lots of activity in the legal system. In old cases, the Moscow City Court announced that it would hear an appeal against the new jail term for Khodorkovsky and Lebedev on 17 May. This follows last week’s Supreme Court ruling that their pre-trial detention was not legal. Perhaps we will see a reduction in sentence or maybe even an acquittal. Valeriy Borshchev, of the presidential council on human rights, said that that body’s investigation showed that charges against Sergey Magnitskiy (who died in pre-trail detention 18 months ago) were fabricated. Meanwhile, in Switzerland, a money-laundering probe against a former Russian tax official has been opened at the request of the company with which he was associated. In on-going cases, two defendants accused of the murders of Stanislav Markelov and Anastasia Baburova in January 2009 have attempted suicide; the verdict was supposed to come out today. And in coming cases, the Russian Audit Chamber says it will sue the former Bank of Moscow president, Andrey Borodin, for US$1 billion (the sum he is supposed to have extracted from Moscow City). Medvedev’s campaign against “legal nihilism” presumably excludes pre-determined verdicts, fabricated evidence and requires punishment. We will see how these work out. Meanwhile Medvedev signed into law an extension of defence lawyers’ rights.
ROPV CONTRIBUTORS
by Patrick Armstrong
I have been a diplomat: I have written reports like the ones leaked and I have read many. And my conclusion is that some report writers are better informed than others. So it is with a strange sense of déjà vu that I have read the Wikileaks on US reports.
My sources for the following are the reports presented at this Website (passed to me by Metin Somnez – thank you): http://matiane.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/wikileaks-war-in-georgia/ (Direct quotations are bolded; I will not give detailed references – search the site). The reports published there are a small sample of all the communications that would have passed from the posts to Washington in August 2008. They are, in fact, low-grade reporting tels with low security classifications and only a partial set at that. Nonetheless they give the flavour of what Washington was receiving from its missions abroad. (It is inconceivable that the US Embassy in Tbilisi was reporting everything Saakashvili told it without comment in one set of reports while another said that he was lying; that’s not how it works).
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
Response to the Heritage Foundation "Time to Revise Obama's Russian "Reset" Policy" by Ariel Cohen, October 26, 2010
by Gordon Hahn
The article reviewed below was written for the Heritage Foundation by Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., who is Senior Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy at the Katherine and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Policy at The Heritage Foundation. Cohen regrets “U.S. concessions on New START, limitations on missile defense, and hands-off policies in Eurasia” because supposedly they “did not prevent Russia from pursuing policies that are often harmful to U.S. interests.” He proposes a return to a hardline in U.S. policy towards Russia. Our footnote commentaries assess the veracity, comprehensiveness, and practicality of the author’s policy critique and recommendations.
To access the full analysis, click Download Heritage_Cohen_26_Oct_2010
Our point of view is not political, is not theoretical, and is not academic. It comes from decades of working at the grassroots of Soviet and post-Soviet society and being avid watchers of Russian politics, economics, history, societal conditioning and current mindsets. Please review our history in order to better understand our perspective on Russia today.
This blog has a companion program, the Russia Media Watch (RMW), which analyzes select pieces of western media for accuracy or inaccuracy of content based on 17 objective criteria. Analyses are then sent to the journalist, the publication and to a wide list of American Congress members, think tanks, business and civic leaders throughout the country.
