Russia: Other Points of View

UKRAINE NEEDS THE WEST'S SUPPORT?

ARTICLE  CRITIQUE 

Response to Wall Street Journal "Ukraine Needs the West's Support - A European democracy sits uncomfortably close to Russia" by Matthew Kaminski, Jan 27, 2010 

by Gordon Hahn 

The article reviewed below is authored by a Ukrainian member of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board.  It is replete with the standard Western mainstream media biases, oversimplifications, misconceptions, and distortions aimed at isolating Russia.  From Russia, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board includes only the radical and unpopular opposition figure Gary Kasparov.

To access the full analysis, please Download WSJ_Kaminski_27_Jan_2010

ELECTIONS IN UKRAINE

COMMENTARY

Flying So High You Can’t See the Ground

By Patrick Armstrong

Ukrainians will be electing a new President on Sunday and, while we do not yet know who will win, we know that neither Yanukovych nor Tymoshenko is running on an overtly anti-Russia platform. Therefore, whoever wins, relations between Kiev and Moscow will likely be calmer than they have been since the “Orange Revolution” of 2004. Stratfor sees this in apocalyptic terms: “The next few months will therefore see the de facto folding of Ukraine back into the Russian sphere of influence” and “a new era of Russian aggressiveness” now begins The author goes on to talk about the Carpathians as a defence shield for Russia, Ukraine as Russia’s “breadbasket” and so on.

But who decided that this was the question that Ukrainian voters were answering? It was the “Orange Revolution” and its outside backers that injected into Ukrainian politics the binary choice of either joining the West or becoming Russia’s appendage: at no point was there support among the majority of Ukrainians for such a choice. And there is absolutely no reason to treat the recent election as having made such a choice. While Yushchenko was indeed the binary candidate: “either this pro-Kremlin couple and pro-Kremlin policy wins, or the pro-European policy does”, he and his view have been brutally rejected by the voters. No surprise, of course, to those who have been watching opinion polls in Ukraine.

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).

THE DIFFICULTY IN BEING WRONG

COMMENTARY

Response to New York Times "The Difficulty of Being Ukraine” by Mark Medish, 23 December 2009 

by Gordon Hahn

It is difficult to be wrong and more difficult to acknowledge it.  On December 23^rd the New York Times gave us at ROPV a Christmas gift of sorts by unwittingly vindicating what we have said regarding the one-sided Washington concensus on Ukraine, Russian-Ukrainian relations, and NATO expansion.  Mark Medish’s “The Difficulty of being Ukraine” implicitly reiterates points ROPV has been making:

(1) that the Orange Revolution was not a revolution at all (Ukraine’s January “presidential elections” are “likely to spell the epitaph of the Orange Revolution”). 

(2) that the ‘revolution’ brought little, if any political or economic reform, and that Ukraine’s economy is no more market-oriented or transparent than Russia’s state capitalism (Ukraine “has been one of the hardest hit by the global financial meltdown, suffering a sharp currency devaluation and a projected 14 percent drop in G.D.P. this year.”)  Recall that Russia’s being hard hit by the crisis is heralded as proof of Russia’s unrestructured economy.

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.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Russia and Europe. Readers will know that since the Ossetia war I have been predicting a change in European attitudes towards Russia. My argument is that many there have realised what a bill of goods they were sold about Saakashvili, Georgia and Russia (to say nothing about the gas supply problem) and will therefore be re-considering their ideas about Russia’s alleged hostility. Some more indications: Medvedev seems to have had a fruitful visit to France and I would expect similar results when he visits Italy today. Furthermore, it appears that his ideas on a new security treaty (Russ, Eng) are at least being listened to rather than dismissed as they first were. And, interestingly enough, Berlusconi just visited Belarus signalling the end of the shunning of “Europe’s last dictator”.

NATO expansion. Russians have been saying NATO promised not to expand. Are they right? Apparently.

Iran. Russia’s representative on the IAEA voted with Western countries to criticise Tehran for its nuclear program. Ahmadinejad was not best pleased. So, Bushehr delayed, no SS-300s and now this.

GETTING RUSSIA WRONG

COMMENTARY

 by Gordon Hahn

In a recent Jamestown Foundation article covering Russian-European summit and energy issues and Russian domestic politics, Pavel Baev made several erroneous assertions consistent with that institution’s biases about Russian. 

Baev’s comments on Russia’s ruling Medvedev-Putin ‘tandem’ are far off the mark. “Medvedev is trying to connect with the loose but powerful idea of "change" and argues that Russia cannot continue prospering as a petro-state, but Putin counters with the affirmative ‘Yes, we can’,” asserts the author.  He adds that Putin’s speech at the United Russia party congress elaborated “Russian conservatism” in opposition to Medvedev’s liberalism, which nevertheless is treated by Baev as nothing more than verbiage.  

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Medvedev Speech. Last week Medvedev gave the annual Presidential address to Parliament. (Russ) (Eng). The principle theme was “modernisation”: “Today we are talking about modernisation – this is the essential aspect of my Address today – about our desire to be modern.” His definition: “A truly modern society is the one that seeks constant renewal, continuous evolutionary transformation of social practices, democratic institutions, visions of the future, assessments of the present, the one engaged in gradual but irreversible changes in technological, economic and cultural spheres, the steady improvement of the quality of life.” He understands that this involves a major psychic change: “Instead of an archaic society in which the leaders think and decide for everyone we will become a society of clever, free and responsible people” and “we ourselves will change too”. These speeches are made annually (the Constitution requires them, Art 84.f) and I am interested that, for practically the first time, the Kommentariat appears to have actually read the speech rather than skimmed it looking for some phrase it can twist into a threat. But old blinders are still on as many commentators spun it as a criticism of Putin, because they never bothered to read Putin’s speeches. Here from Putin’s speech in 2004 (the first I looked at): “We want high living standards and a safe, free and comfortable life. We want a mature democracy and a developed civil society… We are interested in further integration of the Russian economy into the international economy.” What many people cannot imagine is that this is a long-term project carried out by a team. Putin stabilised things; Medvedev is to modernise things. But it’s the same project. The doing of it, is, of course, the problem. It will be neither easy nor short. Nor entirely successful.