Russia: Other Points of View

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

 by Patrick Armstrong

Military Doctrine. On Friday Medvedev signed off on the latest military doctrine (officially the third after 1993 and 2000). I don’t see anything very different from its predecessors: NATO expansion, terrorism, nuclear weapons will be used if we think we have to. (The last seems to be hailed as a new development whenever it appears: in 2010 or 1999; but it’s every nuclear power’s actual policy). Perhaps there’s a bit more emphasis on modernisation of the Armed Forces and their equipment as a consequence of deficiencies discovered in the Ossetia war. I must confess, I never understand what these documents are supposed to do: large sections are simply a list of the obvious. For example:  “36. The main tasks of military planning are” a, b, c, d, e, f; all of which could be summarised as “to plan for eventualities”. But they must serve some planning or authorisation purpose in the Russian bureaucratic structure. A calm and thoughtful assessment here.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Election fraud. Two opinion polls, both by Levada, give us data on how people say they voted in the elections last month. A poll of Muscovites (JRL/201/4) gives 46.1% for United Russia (official numbers 66.25%), 27.1% for the communists (13.3%), 11.8% for LDPR (6.13%), 7.9% for Just Russia (5.33%) and 3.7% for Yabloko (4.71%). A nation-wide poll asking the same question gives United Russia 47%, communists 13%, Just Russia 8%, LDPR 7% and Yabloko 2%. When the Yabloko leader said his vote hadn’t been counted at all, a recount was ordered and, lo! it was found that some Yabloko votes had “accidently” been miscounted. But these numbers do not give us a clear picture. Levada tells us that Muscovites voted communist at twice the rate of the nation; this seems improbable. Levada also tells us that fewer people voted for Yabloko than the official numbers give; this too seems improbable if the scenario were to inflate United Russia’s numbers and deflate the others. So, as always, an examination of the data we have deepens the mystery. The Yabloko leader has described what his people told him and it appears that fake voters was the preferred method. Medvedev met with the head of the CEC and said “All types of claims must be investigated thoroughly”. Well, we’ll see. These numbers make a prima facie cause for fraud favouring the pedestal party but leave us in the dark as to what degree of fraud there was.

LOCAL ELECTIONS IN RUSSIA

ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Response to New York Times "Why Russians Ignore Ballot Fraud" by Clifford J. Levy, October 25, 2009

by Gordon Hahn

The following New York Times article is correct only in its main point: It is true that the pro-Kremlin United Russia’s victory in Russia’s local elections (winning 60 percent of seats overall in hundreds of local mayoral and council elections, including the Moscow city council election) was exaggerated in the final results by the unfair playing field, the party’s access to ‘administrative resources, and various methods of ballot stuffing and vote count fraud.  Indeed, the last three sentences of the article relate an experience that I myself witnessed in the 2004 presidential elections.  Beyond the obvious and relatively belabored point of dishonest Russian elections, the NYT’s and author’s oversimplifications about the electoral and political system and their extreme prejudices about Russia and Russians taint the article.  It is yet another U.S. mainstream media article, masked as ‘news reporting’, functioning as biased opinion and providing no alternative points of view on the debatable points.  In short, it is a U.S. mainstream media classic.

To access the full analysis, please click here Download NYT_Levy_11_09

MEDVEDEV: POLITICAL DUNCE, DUPE, DECEPTIONIST, OR DEMOCRAT?

COMMENTARY

by Gordon Hahn 

For nearly a decade Russia has been living under a stealth-like soft authoritarianism, not a 'managed democracy', as many persist in calling the regime. Last week's local elections removed the cloaking device from the system's no longer stealth-like dagger.  'You Tube' and various Russian websites exposed efforts to control and falsify the vote, the bulk of which were undertaken by supporters of the authorities' party, United Russia, although not necessarily at the request of Medvedev or Putin.  

This is not to say that the election results were completely falsified.  In some regions, such as in the North Caucasus republics of Adygeya and Karachaevo-Cherkessia, opposition candidates managed to win mayoral elections in the second largest cities in both of those republics.  However, on the whole and especially in the important city council vote in Moscow, the elections were a real abomination.  Hence, even Russia's 'managed opposition' perceived the demise of Russia's hitherto virtual democracy. 

October 11's elections exposed President Dmitry Medvedev either negatively as a political dunce, dupe, or deceptionist - or more positively as a skillful reformer maneuvering in an authoritarian-friendly environment.  Which conclusion you come to depends on what your interpretation of the politics surrounding the elections is.  Which one is right will be borne out by Medvedev's (and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's) future actions.  

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Election fraud. There are objective and perfectly understandable reasons for United Russia to win most elections in Russia. The population supports its leaders and, consequently, extends that support to their pedestal. In fact, Levada’s most recent numbers show United Russia with more than one and a half times as much support as all the others combined. The losers always charge vote fraud but usually it ends there. This time, the three losers, LDPR, KPRF and Just Russia actually walked out of the Duma in protest (all have now returned); there have been some small protests, the Communists are demanding the resignation of the Head of the CEC and says it will be holding rallies today. So this one has better legs (and supporting detail) than the pro-forma protests of earlier times. We will see what happens. Again, however, I stress that a consideration of polling numbers over time shows that United Russia is bound to win; cheating only determines the scale of that win (so, indeed, why do it at all?) Medvedev once murmured something about reducing the 7% threshold. I believe 7% is too high for Russia’s conditions (unless, of course, its purpose is to produce enormous United Russia majorities across the country) and it would be better to go back to the old 5% threshold. But there is no “correct” number and there is great variation across the world.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Regional elections. Elections were held across Russia on Sunday and, as usual, United Russia dominated the results. The losing parties have charged fraud and walked out of the Duma on Wednesday in protest. What are we to make of this? It is very likely there was a degree of fraud, both from the top of the power pyramid and from the bottom. But there are objective reasons for the domination of United Russia. It is the party in power and the population has showed, in innumerable opinion polls, that it approves of the people in power; approval of Medvedev and Putin is easily transferred to their pedestal party. Some opposition parties have been led by the same people for 15 years: why should anyone decide that Zhirinovskiy and Zyuganov, who have been rejected time and time again, suddenly have the answers? As to the others, Yabloko, while it has a new leader, marginalised itself by its repeated refusal to collaborate with like-minded people, Just Russia has never really got off the ground and Other Russia is a stunt for Western naïfs. Therefore, in my opinion, fraud, pressure and the like can account for the margin of victory but not for the victory itself. The Russian “opposition” has found a comfortable niche which is personally profitable to its leaders while United Russia gets things done. Not an ideal situation to be sure, but one which many hands have made.

UKRAINE PREPARES TO VOTE

ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Response to Washington Post "Kremlin Intensifies Pressure as Ukraine Prepares for Vote - Russia Lodges List of Complaints Against Neighbor" by Philip P.Pan, Sep 14, 2009 

by Gordon Hahn

The Washington Post article reviewed below is littered with one-sided opinion masquerading as news.  The article, which insinuates into readers minds the view that Russia is planning aggression against Ukraine and is solely to blame for the deterioration in relations between the two countries, contains numerous inaccurate statements, claims unsupported by data or facts, and a consistently one-sided perspective.  No facts are brought to bear that show any Russian intent to commit aggression against Ukraine.  It should be noted that this article follows a summer replete with articles in the Post and other mainstream media and other news outlets purporting to show that Russia would attack Georgia this summer.  ROPV continues to wait and see when those predictions will be borne out in reality and whether anyone else will hold the U.S. mainstream media responsible in any way for its misleading reporting.

To access the full analysis, please click here Download WP_Pan_14_Sep_09

PAVLOVSKY TALKS ABOUT PUTIN-MEDVEDEV RELATIONSHIP

ROPV CONTRIBUTORS

by Joera Mulders 

www.eunis.eu

It has been an interesting week for Russia watchers after the Kremlin’s royal spin-doctor Khleb Pavlovsky granted two interviews. One was published in his journal Russkii Zhurnal (JRL#151-7), the other aired on the RSN radio program Ataka (JRL#152-6). In addition a report was leaked that directs the blame of the impact of the crisis on the oligarchs (JRL #152-11).

These three publications give us several insights in the dynamics and plans within the Putin - Medvedev cooperation, the so called tandem.

An important element in both interviews with Pavlovsky is his reference to the Belovezha accords, the December 1991 agreement between the leaders of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, de facto dissolving the Soviet Union. Pavlovsky uses this event to once again underscore the fragility of the Russian state. This event - he argues - symbolizes the opportunity that exists for a small group of people to abolish the state (existing for the service to the people) for personal gains. This opportunity manifested itself in 1991, was apparent in 1999, when Putin came to power, and still lingers today, spurring for example the recent increase of violence in the Caucasus.

THE COLORED REVOLUTION DISEASE HITS MOLDOVA

COMMENTARY

by Gordon Hahn 

Recent events in Chisinau have underscored our point about the dangers of certain aspects of U.S. democratization policy, which tends to encourage such revolutionary seizures of power.  Over a year ago ROPV carried an article on similar events after Armenia’s February 19 presidential elections sparked a similar attempt at colored revolution, killing eight and wounding many more.  It read in part:

"These sad results should be a lesson to U.S. and Western policymakers about the dangers of fomenting colored revolutions, no matter how peaceful and seemingly justified they might seem. Democratization at the fastest pace possible, in particular by means of revolution, is not the best solution to all problems, in all places, and all times. "

"It is an especially risky proposition to support the massing of thousands on the central squares of national capitols under regimes that the West deems undemocratic. Such regimes are by definition more likely to use force, and the use of force under such circumstances is likely to multiply, risking even civil war. In particular, it needs to be remembered that the spark - the wrong decision to answer a push with a punch or a punch with a knife cut or gunshot – can be ignited by any one of the thousands assembled. Such demonstrations, convened in a heated political atmosphere of electoral politics and high levels of distrust, are perhaps especially prone to violent turns. This is true regardless of the many lectures and lessons on methods of civil disobedience organized by Western NGOs, often covertly sponsored and funded by the U.S. and other Western governments."