Russia: Other Points of View

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

 by Patrick Armstrong

Over-centralisation. I have long thought that Putin, probably as a result of his fear that Russia would break up, over-centralised control (From his first phone-in in 2000: “The ‘power component’ in this country has become weakened and everything went tumbling down”.). One of Medvedev’s problems, therefore, is to reduce this centralisation: his goal of “modernisation” is impossible if all decisions are made at the centre. Yesterday, the Institute of Contemporary Development, with which Medvedev is associated, issued its report on what should be done. In brief, it calls for a general loosening of the political and command system of the country and a number of changes; many reverse decisions Putin made when he was President and mark somewhat of a return to the Yeltsin period. No doubt the Kommentariat will go into a frenzy of speculation about a struggle between the two Duumvirs, but I believe that this is all part of the next stage of the Team’s Plan. The report is probably to be seen as a contribution to the discussion. We will see what happens.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Ukraine-Russia relations. Will obviously be “better” as neither winner is running on an overtly anti-Russia platform. That having been said, a better word would be “rational relations”. The NATO obsession was a disaster for relations (and extremely divisive inside Ukraine, where an overwhelming majority want good relations with Russia) and that is now over. There will, however, still be disagreements but, with luck, they can be settled outside of an apocalyptic framework.

Internet. The latest numbers suggest about a fifth of Russian adults (24 million) use the Internet daily. This figure is said to be up about 20% since last year. (JRL/2010/11/5). As I have said many times before, the standard scare pieces about government control of Russian media omit to mention Internet access (probably because they are mostly written by Old Media types). The New Media is replacing the Old all over the world.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

 by Patrick Armstrong

Ten Years. Putin became acting President on the last day of 1999 and was elected in March. When he came to power, judging from the essay he wrote, he set himself four tasks: 1) to reverse the economic decline; 2) to reverse the disintegration of Russia; 3) to increase Russia’s influence in the world; and 4) to introduce a rule of law or, as I prefer to put it, a rule of rules. Then, economic indicators were trending down; Russia seemed to be literally breaking up (this fear often featured in his early speeches); most world capitals slighted it as a negligible and declining power; and the “rule” in Russia was that of corruption and incompetence. No one can deny that he has made great progress in these aims. The economy has turned around: here he had luck with high energy prices, but his policy did not squander the money. He has certainly restored central control – too much in my opinion – but no one now talks about the coming disintegration of Russia. Russia is taken much more seriously today although here the result is mixed. To those who will ever regard a weak Russia as a danger and a strong Russia as a threat, Putin’s effects have been wholly negative; but these people will never be pleased. Russia must now be taken more seriously (even though I think that Putin and his team sometimes overestimate its power and influence). But there has been little progress on the fourth aim. Nevertheless, few have been as successful at accomplishing their purpose as Putin and his team have. The team is still in place and is moving on the second half of the program.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

 By Patrick Armstrong

HAPPY NEW YEAR!                                                                                                                        

С  НОВЫМ  ГОДОМ!

Jihadist war in Russia. The jihadist war continues in the North Caucasus. After the deaths of Khattab in 2002 and Basayev in 2006, jihadist activity slowed greatly; but a new leader, who has re-animated the “Caucasus Emirate” has appeared, (Said Abu Saad Buryatskiy). His new tactics use suicide bombers to target the security forces and other opponents. Since the last Sitrep, there has been a murder attempt on an imam, car bombs in Nazran and elsewhere in Ingushetia, a police chief murdered in Dagestan, a bomb defused in Kabardino-Balkaria, a suicide car bomb in Makhachkala and today mines near a railway line in North Ossetia. However, in strong contrast with their ineffectiveness when the international jihadists arrived 15 years ago, the authorities also win some: a group, together with an important leader was killed in Chechnya; another group with its leader was killed in Dagestan. The last produced a document showing payments (reportedly local extortions as well as monies from UAE, Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaijan). Two more were killed today in Dagestan. This is, of course, the very same war, animated by the same ideology, using the same methods and fought for the same purpose, which we see in the USA, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and around the world. It’s just being fought in a different place. But, because that place is Russia, many in the Kommentariat cannot make the connection. (And I’m not convinced that very many intelligence and security services truly understand it either).

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

By Patrick Armstrong

Reality bites. NATO, having enjoyed a decade of expanding and ignoring Russia’s concerns, now finds itself, in the person of its Secretary-General, asking Moscow for help. Rasmussen was in Moscow looking for weapons and training to support NATO’s efforts in Afghanistan. Too bad the people in NATO didn’t listen harder in 2000 and early 2001, when Putin and Ivanov were warning about the common enemy. While Moscow certainly has no desire to see a jihadist-controlled Afghanistan, it has no reason to trust NATO which has failed to keep any of its promises to it. What can NATO offer Moscow in return? Will it make a binding declaration that there will be no more expansion? Can it, filled as it now is with new members who regard it as nothing but an anti-Russia organisation? It’s not surprising that Rasmussen left without any commitments.  Just asking is not going to do the trick: NATO must acknowledge the mistrust it has built up.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

 by Patrick Armstrong

Putin phone-in. On Saturday, Putin gave another marathon phone-in session (Eng) (Russ). As befits the Prime Minister’s job, everything was domestic (except for a bit about the WTO and the Jackson-Vanik amendment). The discussion was very detailed and, as ever, many questions were of the nature “My roof leaks, can you fix it?” My favourite bit was the presenter’s observation: “We have a lot of messages which quote the local authorities as saying: ‘We hear that Putin has promised it to you, so go and ask Putin’”. To which Putin replied: “Well, if you have such facts, let me know while we are on the air and we will sort out [мы разберемся] the people who give such answers.” Still a long way to go. And, once again he refused to give any indication of future plans. Here is his reason: “The biggest mistake would be to adjust our current work based on the interests of future election campaigns… When you start thinking about your ratings or about what you should do in the interests of future election campaigns, you will immediately feel tied to that and unable to make decisions some of which may be unpleasant but important for the economy and ultimately for the people.” Neither he nor Medvedev (nor Mr X) will ever say anything different before the event.

THE WASHINGTON POST CONTINUES TO DISTORT THE NORTH CAUCASUS

COMMENTARY

 by Gordon Hahn

The Washington Post once again distorts reality in Russia’s North Caucasus. The Post’s (and U.S. mainstream media’s) malpractice of covering the North Caucasus only within the context of Russian human rights violations continues (see “Russia's political murders - When was the last time that killings of human rights activists were so blatant, and so common?,” Washington Post, 29 August 2009).  At first glance Philip Pan’s October 30^th article “In Russia, an intensifying insurgency” seemed a turn for the better.  However, a close reading reveals conformity with the biased approach.

Jumping to Conclusions: The Washington Post’s Unjust Coverage of Russia’s Murders

COMMENTARY

by Gordon Hahn

An October 29^th Washington Post editorial again continued to distort reality in Russia’s North Caucasus.  The editorial follows the Post’s and U.S. mainstream media’s perverted practice of covering the North Caucasus only within the context of’ Russian human rights’ violations.  The Polish Foreign Minister and former Defense Minister Radek Sikorski’s wife, Anne Applebaum, the Post’s main Russia ‘observer’, probably penned the article. 

The Post editorial jumps to judgment in concluding that a single hand is behind the murders of courageous human rights defenders Anna Politkovskaya, Natalya Estemirova, Stanislav Markelov, Anastasia Baburova as well as Ingushetia opposition leader Maksharip Aushev, head of a Chechen children's charity Zarema Sadulayeva and her husband.  The Post claims that all the above were activists defending human rights in the Caucasus, and this common trait made them a target of forces dispatched or tolerated by Russian Prime Minister and former President Vladimir Putin. 

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.

WORKING WITH RUSSIA TO PREVENT EURASIAN COLLAPSE

REPRINTS

by Andrey Tsygankov

RFERL, Oct 29, 2009 

The Eurasian region continues to disintegrate, and neither Russia nor the West has been able to arrest the destabilizing dynamics.

Evidence of rising instability throughout the region include the August 2008 Russia-Georgia war, renewed terrorist attacks in the North Caucasus, the persistent failure of Western forces to stabilize Afghanistan, the inability of Central Asian rulers to reign in local clans and drug lords, and the paralysis of legitimately elected bodies of power in Ukraine and Moldova.

Violence is gradually spreading, waiting for an opportunity to erupt into a large-scale conflict. Transregional transportation routes may soon be choked due to Russia's conflicts with Ukraine, Georgia, and Turkmenistan.

The West's attempts to secure and stabilize Eurasia after the end of the Cold War must be recognized as a failure. In the mid-1990s, U.S. geostrategists such as Zbigniew Brzezinski recommended that the United States pursue a policy of replacing Russia as the referee and protector of the newly established non-Russian states in the region. After initial hesitation, the United States and other Western states followed this advice.

Yet Eurasia has not become stable or peaceful and continues to disintegrate. The bureaucrats in Washington and Brussels have failed to understand that they lack the resources, the will, and the experience to stabilize the complex region. Today -- after the Iraq war and the global financial crisis -- the United States is beginning to recognize its overextension, but it is not at all clear if Washington and Brussels are prepared to act differently in Eurasia.

Continue reading this article