Russia: Other Points of View

ANNA POLITKOVSKAYA'S MURDER WAS MEANT AS A MESSAGE?

REPRINTS

Russian Reporter’s Murder Was Meant as a Message, Investigator Says

New York Times

November 9, 2012

By Anna Kordunsky

MOSCOW — The motive behind the 2006 murder of Anna Politkovskaya, a veteran reporter who was an unstinting critic of the Kremlin and its policies in Chechnya, was to instill fear in the country’s journalists, a top criminal investigator said in an interview published Friday. It was a bleak assessment of a case that remains unsolved six years after Ms. Politkovskaya was shot at point-blank range as she arrived home from grocery shopping.

“I believe the person who ordered this pursued not only retaliation against Anna Politkovskaya for critical publications,” Petros V. Garibyan, who headed the investigation, told the daily newspaper Kommersant. Referring to the killer, Mr. Garibyan said, “First and foremost, he sought a demonstrative and resonant act aimed at intimidating all of you — journalists — as well as society and the authorities.”

RUSSIA SHOULD STOP SHYING AWAY FROM DEFENDING ITSELF IN THE FOREIGN PRESS

REPRINTS

Interview by Alexei Pankin of William Dunkerley

Komsomolskaya Pravda
October 22, 2012

Is it true that the West is against Russia? Is it waging a propaganda war? --Let’s discuss!

If the answers to those questions are yes, how is the anti-Russian propaganda organized, and who is behind it? Is it possible to counter it? And are our authorities negligently leaving the formation the country's image to the enemies of the president? Alexei Pankin talks about all this in conversation with well-known American media analyst William Dunkerley.

Q. Bill, recently, The Moscow Times published a scandalous article by Steven Korn, president of the American governmentally-sponsored Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. In it he relates a very disparaging characterization of president Vladimir Putin. I was very struck by Mr. Korn's sincerity. I get the feeling that he himself believes what he’s written, and thinks that for English-speaking audiences all those negative allegations are self-evident. Is it true that the image of the Russian president in the West is one of a leader who is a "ruthless politician" who "dismantled Russia's democratic and free market reforms" in order to become a "totalitarian leader"?

RESPONSE TO ESTONIAN DEFENSE MINISTER'S ERRONEOUS ARTICLE

Problems of Expansionism: Russia, NATO, and Georgia

by Gordon M. Hahn

A September 10^th Wall Street Journal article by Estonia’s Defense Minister Urmas Reinsalu (printed below) demonstrates why NATO expansion has been the biggest among the US’s post-Cold War foreign policy mistakes––especially when it comes to Russia.  NATO expansion by the U.S. and other western countries, has made it impossible to fashion a balanced policy that takes into account the security interests of both Russia and its neighbors.  Moreover, it has brought more radically Russophobic countries in the former Soviet Union into NATO, prompting more expansion and thus Moscow’s continuing angst about the military bloc.  Minister Reinsalu presents a deliberately distorted view of the August 2008 Georgian-Ossetian-Russian war and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent statements regarding that war.

Minster Reinsalu claims that Putin “told reporters that he had approved Russia's 2008 invasion of Georgia two years before it took place.”  But Putin said nothing of the sort.  Putin was responding to a journalist’s question at a press conference as to whether “Russia did not really have plan of action in the event of military aggression of Georgia against South Ossetia?” Putin responded: “There was a plan, and, in my opinion, this is no secret, specifically within the framework of this plan the Russian side also acted.  I already have spoken about this publicly earlier as well.  It (the plan) was approved and agreed upon by me.” 

PUTIN AND RUSSIANS NEED A BREAK

REPRINTS

Should Russia copy the American model of democracy? Former U.S. Consul General in St. Petersburg John Evans explains why it shouldn't.

September 17, 2012
by John Evans http://rbth.ru/articles/2012/

This past summer has been a dispiriting one for U.S.-Russian relations, and the prospects arising from the U.S. presidential campaign  now underway are even less encouraging. One of the many misconceptions that Americans had about Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union was that it would embrace Western democracy – preferably a two-party system like ours – and soon become something like, say, France.  We were wrong in our prediction.  Russia has always been on her own trajectory, just as every nation fundamentally is. 

Why do we think Russia ought to resemble the United States?  One would like to trace it back to what Alexis de Tocqueville said in “Democracy in America.” “Each of [these nations] seems to be marked out by the will of Heaven to sway the destinies of half the world,” but one doubts that is the source.  So why is it that we Americans are so obsessively interested – and usually agitated – by shortcomings we observe in Russia?  During the competition between two opposing social systems during the Cold War, it was perhaps understandable, but now?
 
First of all, Americans still confuse “Russia” and “Russians” with the “Soviet Union” and “Soviets.”  It is embarrassing to note the frequency with which speakers on Russian affairs here in Washington still – more than two decades after the collapse of the Soviet empire – make that simple slip of the tongue and refer to “Soviets,” when clearly “Russians” would be appropriate.  When a major presidential candidate declares that Russia is the “number one foe” of the United States, that is more than a lapsus linguae; however, the failure to distinguish between the two is part of a larger, and regrettable, pattern.

MAKE IT STOP: ANOTHER MSM CARICATURE OF RUSSIA

COMMENTARY

by Gordon Hahn

A recent piece in the National Review provides yet another example of one-sided Russia-bashing posing as objective, dispassionate analysis in the U.S. mainstream media.  The article titled “Russia’s Choice” by David Satter reminds one of those touched-up Soviet era photographs in which the images of purged leaders were removed from the picture (often not so very skillfully) so as not to complicate the viewer’s rosy perception of Soviet politics and history with any inconvenient, contradictory notions or facts.  In the NJ article’s case, while the average reader could not possibly catch the excluded nuances that would fundamentally transform the perception of Russian politics intended by the author;  someone who follows Russian politics closely with a more nuanced eye can fill in the empty spaces left by Satter’s ignoring the past year of Russian history.

While I agree with Satter that Russia would be better off if Putin had decided to retire and handed the baton to his liberal ‘successor’, Dmitrii Medvedev, or another more democratic politician, I cannot agree with Satter’s distorted description of the Medvedev presidency or his characterization of the tumultuous events of recent months.

First, the author claims that “Putin's decision to run for a third term as president exposed the presidency of Dmitri Medvedev in 2008-­12 as a sham. Despite his pledges to fight corruption and his denunciations of ‘legal nihilism,’ Medvedev achieved only one thing during his tenure: He extended the president's term in office to six years.” 

PUSSY RIOT CONDUCTS A TYPING SCHOOL

REPRINTS

by Patrick Armstrong

The article originally appeared on http://us-russia.org/80-pussy-riot-conducts-a-typing-school.html

As we all know, a group calling itself Pussy Riot staged a stunt in Moscow’s Christ the Saviour Cathedral in February. Three members were arrested and have been sentenced to two years in jail. Which, less time served in “preventative detention” which counts twice, amounts to 14 months in prison. With the possibility of parole.

I’m not here going to talk about what they said and did in the church or any of the stunts that they pulled before or during the trial that probably extended the process. I’m not even sure of my own opinion about what should have happened to them. My concern here is the suspicious unanimity of coverage in the Western media.

We hear much about how they are mothers, as if there were some hitherto unknown legal principle that mothers get a free pass. [Note Eugene Ivanov has corrected me: there is a provision on Russian law for clemency towards pregnant women and mothers of small children which was not applied in this case. But, even so, I do not recall and Western outlet pointing this fact out.] We are told their ages and they are described as a “punk band” or sometimes as a “feminist punk band”. They are protesters against Putin. And, of course, it is taken for granted that Putin is really the law and judge in the case. Der Spiegel has all the memes. Masha Lipman misses out telling us that some are mothers. A particularly vapid piece in the New York Times about their style misses the mother part too. But a piece in Huffington Post gets them all in. An especially absurd piece in the Globe and Mail hits all the notes – and more: “Like the Pussy Riot heroines, whose names should be written with markers across all of our bodies, if only to remember an era in which we, too, were not afraid.” The Guardian gets them all in. As does the Bellona NGO. Something not mentioned in all the stuff about Putin and the Russian Church being in cahoots is that both the Chief Mufti and the Chief Rabbi also supported Putin).

KILLING THE 'RESET', ONE BIASED ARTICLE AT A TIME

COMMENTARY

This article by Gordon Hahn is response to: Foreign Policy’s, 28 June 2012 issue, article “Putin’s Got America Right Where he Wants It" written by Michael Weiss.  The article can be found below following Gordon’s comments. 

Sharon Tennison 

By Gordon M. Hahn

As I have noted elsewhere, while I disagree with almost everything President Barack Obama has done, I as a conservative regard his ‘reset’ policy as one of a few small bright spots during his tenure.  We conservatives naturally do not want to see him re-elected, but it is not necessary to distort his record on Russia to achieve that eventuality.             

Prior to Obama’s presidency, American policy on post-Soviet Russia had been an unmitigated disaster.  It was high time we acknowledged our mistakes and made some compromises with Russia––if only in our self-interest.  The U.S. needs Russia on a host of key national security issues ranging from Iran’s nuclear ambitions to the war against global jihadism.

Unfortunately, as the U.S. presidential campaign shifts into high gear, Republicans of various persuasions are mounting a campaign to undermine what they see as the potential ‘reset’ feather in Obama’s cap.  The days are long gone when American politicians engaged in at least some restraint in the ‘gotcha’ political culture, particularly when an issue revolves around U.S. affairs beyond our shores.  Now every international event is interpreted as if by political operatives straight from campaign staffs in the effort to undermine their political opponents.  This was true during George W. Bush’s two terms, and it is true for Obama.  This means killing the “U.S.-Russia reset” in the minds of the American people, one article after another, in the U.S. mainstream media’s already severely-biased Russia coverage.

THE LITVINENKO CONTAMINATION CASE IS CONTAMINATED

ROPV CONTRIBUTORS

by William Dunkerley

Mention the Alexander Litvinenko case, and people think of radioactive contamination.  Now, though, it's looking like the case itself has become contaminated.

The London Coroner's office has played a central role in the Litvinenko case. But these days it appears to be in disarray and hiding from the public.

What's Behind This?

It is now almost five and a half years since Litvinenko's death. But the Coroner still has not ruled on the manner and cause of death. That means it's not official that radioactive polonium killed Litvinenko. What's more, it's not even official that he was murdered.

ALEXANDER LITVINENKO: THE DEATHBED STATEMENT - WHO REALLY WROTE IT?

ROPV CONTRIBUTORS

By William Dunkerley

Who wrote Alexander Litvinenko's so-called deathbed statement? That may sound like a trick question. You know, like "who's buried in Grant's tomb?" But there are serious questions about the media's reportage on Litvinenko's final statement: who wrote it, and did Litvinenko even agree with what it said?

Regardless of who wrote the statement, its stinging accusation that Vladimir Putin poisoned Litvinenko dominated world headlines in late 2006. Indeed, it rocked the world. As a consequence, relations between Russia and Great Britain started to take on a Cold War character. Diplomats were expelled, and things went downhill from there. The U.S. Congress chimed in with threatening rhetoric of condemnation.

But amidst all this hyper-reaction, media reports presented no evidence to substantiate the content of the accusation. A new video analyzes the coverage. It points to the whole story having been concocted in the media, with no factual basis.

THEY ARE STILL AT IT: MSM CONTINUES TO DISTORT RUSSIAN REALITY

COMMENTARY

by Gordon Hahn

In the latest fiascoes that leading U.S. mainstream media (MSM) call journalism, news reporters continue to distort or ignore the continually-changing Russian reality. Meanwhile, a new reform era continues into its fifth year.  I alerted leaders on ROPV to the coming thaw in April 2008, covered the thaw’s predicted gradual progress from summer 2008, and traced its evolution into a perestroika 2.0, and the attendant glasnost 2.0 culminating its first phase in December 2012. 

During this entire period – 2008-2012 – the New York Times (NYT), Washington Post (WP), and Wall Street Journal (WSJ) rarely if ever mentioned Medvedev’s reforms, no less the overarching liberalization trend that began with Dmitrii Medvedev’s arrival to the presidency.  On the few occasions when they did allude to reforms, they ridiculed them as mimicking reform-put-forward as deceptions in order to justify the allegedly “false words” from Medvedev in support of democratization. This I also covered on ROPV.  The MSM’s take was that nothing is happening, since Medvedev is the puppet of the real ‘national leader,’ the neo-Stalinist KGB man, Vladimir Putin.  As we hear again today, Putin, as Russia’s ‘Stalin of today’ would never countenance liberal reforms, and would only ‘tighten the screws.’