Russia: Other Points of View

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

BEREZOVSKIY. Suicide after the loss of the rest of his money seems the most likely theory although his “friends” are being as suggestive as possible (See Dunkerley on these nebulous suggestions). But I notice that this time, the Western MSM, ever ready in the past to uncritically re-type an anti-Putin handout, is holding back: maybe the judge’s opinion of Berezovskiy’s veracity has persuaded them not to be so credulous. And so the Western media has lost one of its favourite sources for anti-Putin stories. Perhaps we will now learn more about the many mysteries surrounding Berezovskiy. The murder of Paul Khlebnikov (the ur-source of the “journalists murdered in Russia” theme), connections with Chechen slavers and kidnappers between the wars, funding for Shamil Basayev, the apartment bombings, the shaping of the Litvinenko story (every character in it worked for, or had worked for, him), the murder of Anna Politkovskaya, the shaping of the Pussy Riot story. Then there’s the story that he wanted to go back to Russia. Lots of rumours, few facts. I am amused that this obit by Masha Lipman manages to avoid all these questions.

LITVINENKO INQUEST. Postponed until October – that will be about the seventh anniversary of his death and still no official finding on what happened! They say that MI6 was paying him. Not the open and shut story we were sold and getting less so by the moment.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP

By Patrick Armstrong

CORRUPTION: IS ANYTHING REALLY HAPPENING? I recommend reading our discussion. But, if you don’t read the whole thing you must read Anatoly Karlin’s entry: all we ever hear is that Transparency International puts Russia near the bottom. But other ratings contradict its: Karlin names them, gives their scores and discusses about the implications. His conclusion is that Russia is pretty much at the world average. Myself, I don’t take these ratings on Russian corruption, press freedom, human rights or anything else very seriously because they’re all too affected by the prevailing memes and I suspect the motives of most of the raters. But Karlin’s point is that TI’s ratings fit poorly with other indicators. Russia is certainly very corrupt but 133^rd worst? I doubt it. (TI, by the way, rates Georgia at 51; let’s watch that rating under Georgia’s new management.) Meanwhile the investigations roll on. More in the military, which some observers rate as the most corrupt part of the body politic: one of the principals in the OboronServis scandal has been released with movement restrictions; she fully cooperated with the investigation, they say, so we’ll be hearing more. A case about soldiers being left to starve has been opened. And the Audit Chamber says it has uncovered nearly US$4 billion in waste and misappropriation in 2012 (more than 10% of the budget). A former Agriculture Minister is questioned in a fraud case revealed last November. And a brand new embezzlement case at the Skolkovo high-tech centre of which Medvedev was so proud. Come to think of it, you should read Sergei Roy’s entry too. “Appropriation of budgetary resources”; that’s what Russia’s big-time corruption involves: the transformation of public money into private benefit. Too many investigations now to keep track of.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Putin. On the 12^th Putin’s address to the Federal Assembly and on the 20^th his marathon press conference (not such bad health, after all). Nothing new – principal emphasis on domestic issues: corruption, qualitative growth, infrastructure and transparency. Foreign issues are what we’ve heard for years: Russia will pursue its own interests and resist being pushed around. An understandable pride in the Team’s achievements: from the press conference, in the last ten years “we have nearly doubled the country's GDP… We have increased the real incomes of the population by several fold…. The birth rate is the best in 20 years. We are taking the necessary steps, it is not enough so far, but progress is evident in healthcare, education and so on.” And, as always, slow and steady is what he wants in Russia and in the world. Perhaps it would not be too much of a stretch to say Putin I was about stopping the downward momentum; Medvedev was about loosening things up and starting towards qualitative growth; Putin II will be a continuation of that and, perhaps, (quite a lot in the Federation Council speech) a heavy attack on corruption. But, I say again: same program, same team.

Dima Yakovlev Bill. So named after a baby who died from negligence, the bill passed both houses with heavy support and Putin signed it into law. It’s retaliation for the US “Magnitskiy Bill” (and in my opinion a rather ineffective and misguided one. Although some amusing reactions: “callousness unusual even by Vladimir Putin’s standards” and the US Senate is offended.). There are a number of adoptions already in the pipeline; it’s not clear what will happen in these cases but Prokhorov says his Civic Platform party (ie he) will pay $50,000 to Russian families that adopt one of them.

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).

PUTIN, PUSSY RIOT, AND THE PROSPECTS FOR PROPER POLITICS IN RUSSIA

COMMENTARY

by Gordon M.Hahn

As usual this August’s reporting on Russia has been less than august.  The focus of the U.S. mainstream media has been the Pussy Riot trial and the sentencing of the punk rock band’s three members to two years in prison for “hooliganism” with “a shading of religious hatred.”

For those who prefer the beach and sun to following Russian politics during the hazy, lazy days of August, they should know that the three Pussy Riot members entered Moscow’s main Church (the one destroyed by Stalin and replaced with an enormous heated outdoor pool until the USSR collapsed), danced around on the altar criticizing the Russian Orthodox Church’s support for the Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, and screaming anti-Putin slogans for something less than a minute. They were arrested, charged with “hooliganism,” and sentenced last week to two years in prison minus the five months which have already been served during their trial and pre-trial detention.

Oversimplification has been the rule in most of the reporting and discourse surrounding the case.  For example, a Reuters report twice overly simplified matters regarding the Pussy Riot case, claiming that “few Russians sympathize” with the Pussy Riot women (Timothy Heritage and Maria Tsvetkova, “Russian punk protesters sentenced to two years jail,” Reuters, 17 August 2012).  Although technically accurate, the statement leaves readers to conclude that the overwhelming majority of Russians condemn the women. 

SYRIA, RUSSIA, HYSTERIA

by Patrick Armstrong

The revolt in Syria, now in its eighteenth month, was not caused by Washington or by Moscow. It is sui generis: specifically it is the consequence of circumstances peculiar to Syria; in general, it is another of the several revolts in the “Arab World”.

But some of the commentary in Western circles – especially, but not exclusively, in the USA – is making it sound like a Manichean battlefield of a new Cold War. Perhaps the epitome of this view is John Bolton’s assertion that “Assad remains in power because of Russia and Iran, with China supporting him in the background.” This is nonsense: Assad remains in power because people in Syria are prepared to fight for him. Naturally, the longer the fight goes on, the more outsiders are attracted: recently the government of Iraq claimed that jihadist fighters were leaving there for Syria and it is quite believable that Teheran is involved as well. But this has nothing to do with Moscow or Beijing. Bolton, perhaps to be given an important position should Romney be elected, goes on to advise what should be done; true to his assumption that Moscow is Assad’s prop, he calls for missile defence installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, withdrawal from START etc etc (Interestingly, no suggestions of how to pressure China.) As to Syria itself, he suggests Washington should “find Syrian rebel leaders who are truly secular and who oppose radical Islam”. Given that “war is deceit”, he may be disappointed in his search. But in truth, Bolton’s piece, like many others from the US right, is not really about Syria or Russia, it is an attack on President Obama: “Obama is not up to the job in Syria.” Indeed, many of the pieces that argue that Moscow is to blame are actually attacks on Obama’s alleged weakness or incapacity. “The Security Council’s moral authority is nil with Russia and China in permanent seats” is followed by “shame on Obama”. This throwaway line “Russia’s belligerent support of a murderous Syrian dictator” is from a excoriation of Obama’s activities, root and branch. Russia is just another boot to throw at him. Not everyone in the US conservative camp is so enthusiastic: this speaks of “strategy creep”, this of the unintended consequences of the Libya intervention, this of past failures and confusions.  But many of the strongest calls for intervention, and the strongest kicks at Moscow, come from this side of the argument.

Continue reading

PUTIN'S ADDRESS AT THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC FORUM IN ST.PETERSBURG

REPRINTS

Kremlin.ru

June 21, 2012

The XVI St Petersburg International Economic Forum has officially opened. The forum’s theme this year is Effective Leadership, which is also at the focus of Vladimir Putin's address at the forum’s plenary session.

Over 5,000 people from 87 countries are taking part in the forum, including President of Finland Sauli Niinisto, member of the Politburo of the Communist Party of China He Guoqiang and former US Secretary of  State Henry Kissinger. More than 30 countries are represented at the ministerial level.

Address at the plenary session of the XVI St Petersburg International  Economic Forum

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, forum participants, friends,

It is my great pleasure to welcome you to the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. I would like to share with this representative audience our plans for Russia’s transformation and to outline my vision of the situation in the global economy. But first let me say a few words about the G20 Summit, which has just concluded and tell you about its work.

The countries meeting at the summit account for about 90% of global GDP. Overall, the discussion’s participants share the view that the situation in the global economy looks quite alarming, but that is nothing new for the people who have gathered today in this hall. There are great many imbalances and accumulated debts. You are all aware of the situation in the leading Eurozone countries: Germany has 81%, France – 86%, the United States – 104% and the figure for Japan is even higher. This undermines the confidence of the business community and makes investors wary.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Syria et al. Whenever something horrible happens in the world that Western governments and media outlets actually notice, we find two different reactions from Moscow and Washington. Moscow confines itself to anodyne statements about constitutional agreement, peace and so forth – admirable sentiments which do nothing. Washington, on the other hand, feels it has to pick a side and blame those that don’t. US media outlets either create this judgement or follow along (which comes first?). Washington then accuses Moscow (and others) of preventing it “doing something”; the media picks up this line and fills up with stories (many of which don’t prove to be true: this one again, for example). When the crisis ends, interest and coverage do too. The collective memory is wiped clean and attention moves to the next CNN crisis. Since the end of the Cold War I recall four of these “humanitarian interventions” that exemplify this pattern. No one today ever mentions Somalia (1992) or Haiti (1994); the first being an utter disaster and the second ineffective. As to Kosovo (1999) we never heard about the KLA and organ harvesting at the time or much else about the people NATO put into power today; as to Libya (2011) mention of gunmen fighting it out or knock-on effects in Chad or Mali stays far in the back pages. The reality is that these “humanitarian interventions” aren’t such big successes that anyone should lightly proceed to the next one. So, if Putin “lectured” Obama, whose knowledge of the world is a bit shaky, I have some sympathy with him. Their bland joint statement here.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Election. Results here in Russian on the CEC site and in English at RIAN. Putin 63.6%, Zyuganov 17.18%, Prokhorov 7.98%, Zhirinovskiy 6.22% (fourth place for once!), Mironov 3.86%. Turnout 65.3%. Turnout in Moscow City and St Petersburg about 50%. Chechnya was a little more subdued this time: a mere 94.89% turnout with only 99.76% for Putin. Interesting from the point of view of the polls: Putin did better than FOM or VTsIOM predicted but on the low range of Levada’s 63-66%. Zyuganov did better than anyone predicted, beating the average estimate by 20%, and Zhirinovskiy did somewhat worse (but they share a sector of the electorate and their total was very close to the estimate); Prokhorov hit the average prediction but Mironov was significantly worse at only about 65% of the prediction. But, generally speaking not large variations from the predicted results and Putin’s lead over perennial runner-up Zyuganov of three and a half to one is hard to pretend was manufactured. (Which isn’t stopping people from trying with what can only be an intentional misuse of statistics).Turnout was below average but still respectable. I have the feeling that the Western connection of the protestors (and I repeat that the US Ambassador’s meeting with the opposition was a gift) induced some people to vote Putin who might not otherwise (à la Voter 2’s story). Prokhorov may have a future as the non-Communist anti-Putin (a Forbes survey rated him the second-most respected billionaire) (perhaps in the cabinet, Putin suggests). Mironov, however, may not have much of a political future.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Candidates. The rules say that nominees of parties in the Duma are easily registered. So Putin (United Russia), Mironov (Just Russia), Zhirinovsky (LDPR) and Zyuganov (KPRF) were all registered early. Independents must produce two million signatures (a process that requires money and organisation). Mikhail Prokhorov (independent), who has lots of the first, passed and was officially registered The CEC rejected Yavlinskiy (Yabloko) saying that a second check of 400,000 signatures turned up 23% invalid. Yavlinskiy says he will appeal. This would mean that Yabloko members could not be elections observers but Putin and Prokhorov have said they will give them mandates to do so. The signature collection process is rife with fraud and easily-discovered technicalities.

Polls. A number of opinion polls show that Putin&Co have recovered their position and make it likely that he will win it on the first ballot. Number two is Zyuganov and number three is Zhirinovskiy. And thus it has ever been. “Liberals” are at the margin of error. Prokhorov, who has said that he intends to be the consolidated anti-Putin candidate, has a distance to go from his current rating of 3-4% to get enough to force a run-off. Mironov maybe (maybe) could get himself up to Zhirinovskiy’s level. Another VTsIOM poll puts Putin and Medvedev as the best leaders of the last century (Brezhnev and Nikolay II third and fourth, Yeltsin and Gorbachev last).