Russia: Other Points of View

RUSSIA AT YEAR'S END - STUCK IN GEAR BUT POISED FOR CHANGE?

COMMENTARY

by Gordon M.Hahn

In stark contrast to the hope of last spring, 2012 draws to a close with both the Russia’s political elite and the new Russian opposition finding themselves stuck in gear.  A year that began with democratic reforms and promises of progress towards a democratic regime transformation is ending in a cacophony of incompetent governance, pervasive and massive corruption scandals, petty infighting, and a petite repression.

Government in Chaos

The Russian government is in chaos as it attempts to address economic modernization challenges and to shore up the country’s economy––all the more challenging since it feels darker economic times approaching.  Despite (or perhaps because of) the reorganization of the Russia’s government (with the addition of a series of young minister appointees undertaken by Prime Minister Medvedev), the government has gotten off to a woefully slow start.
           
This prompted President Vladimir Putin in August to harshly criticize the government’s work for not moving more quickly on his 22 roadmaps for economic structural reforms. The latter were laid out in his first presidential decrees after inauguration.  For example, the Labor Ministry failed to draw up a new personnel policy for state and civil service.  The Science and Education Ministry failed to delay a salary raise for teachers.  The Regional Development Ministry was slow in drafting a set of special conditions for mortgages for certain categories of citizens.  Putin instructed Medvedev to call the three offending ministers on the carpet.  Shortly thereafter one of the troika, Regional Development Minister Oleg Govorun, resigned.  Only five roadmaps have begun implementation––and the key construction, customs procedures, and electricity grid roadmaps will not be implemented until next year.

Medvedev’s government was also slow in resolving issues related to establishing private account contributions under the pension system; a system that is long overdue for reform as a whole.  And Putin was further dismayed when the government issued a draft budget that failed to take into account the planned pension reforms.  In October, it was reported that only half of the leadership positions in the crucial Energy Ministry had been filled, and that the ministry was in chaos.  This further complicated an energy sector that is being torn apart by competition between the presidential administration’s statist energy point man, Igor Sechin, and the government’s liberal point man, Arkadii Dvorkovich.  Thus, a roadmap for the energy sector (as well as one for Russia's innovation strategy) was rejected by Medvedev  and the respective ministries were ordered to thoroughly revise them.  There are enough reports to indicate that it is not just the energy sector that is plagued by the bifurcation and competition between the presidential and governmental staffs (see, for example, www.ng.ru/politics/2012-10-11/1_minenergo.html  and www.ng.ru/economics/2012-11-29/1_kazus.html)
           
All this governmental chaos and infighting comes at a bad time, as the government is running out of time and money for implementing a series of modernization plans and an ambitious privatization schedule.  Economic growth has slowed this year from 4.9 percent in the first quarter, to 2.9 percent in the third quarter, and is projected to remain at that low level or lower through 2013.  Regarding the massive privatization plans which are slow to be implemented, the government recently sold a stake in SberBank to get the ball finally rolling, which will not feed the budget enough to boost growth.  Only fundamental restructuring will encourage sufficient growth, but Russian authorities (like authorities everywhere) are reluctant to undertake economic reforms that relinquish political power––especially when instability abounds both domestically and internationally.  In an interview published on November 20th,, Medvedev warned that the economy is in a pre-crisis or “pre-storm” (predgrozovaya) situation.

Anti-Corruption Fight and Corruption Scandals

On top of these critical situations throughout autumn, the country has been rocked by a series of the high profile corruption cases reaching the loftiest corridors of power, as Putin seems to be getting serious about rooting out this most grave of Russia maladies.  These include the R15 billion (approximately half a billion dollars) APEC Summit misappropriation case, the R 6.5 billion Glonass geospatial system embezzlement case, the R10 million Health and Social Development Ministry investigation, and the unprecedentedly high-level Oboronservis embezzlement case exposed in November.  In the last case, six Oboronservis executives have been arrested so far, and Defense Minister Anatolii Serdyukov and Chief of the General Staff Nikolai Makarov, were fired.  Those arrested illegally sold R95.5 million worth of state-owned real estate, land and shares at below-market rates to temporary shell companies, presumably funneling the holdings back to themselves, their friends and family members.  Serdyukov who headed Oboronservis until last year, is married to Deputy Premier Viktor Zubkov’s daughter, and was found cavorting in the apartment of the one of the chief female figures in the case.

Later in the month the same state television channel that publicized the Oboronservis case also exposed a new corruption case involving Yelena Skrynnik, the former Minister of Agriculture and chairwoman of the state’s agricultural leasing company ‘RosAgroLizing’, (see http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1387370/biznesinteresy_eleny_skrynnik?full#cut  and http://www.ng.ru/economics/2012-11-29/4_skrynnik.html%29.  Skrynnik claims that she informed then Deputy Premier Zubkov about these issues and asked journalists to inquire with him.  Thus, this case could be an attempt to ‘pay back’ Zubkov by some of those hurt by the Oboronservis scandal––or a signal from higher up that few will be spared in the new anti-corruption drive or both.  Regardless, the corruption fight could be spiraling out of control now and threatens to destabilize the elite, who are already somewhat shaken by defections from the regime after the emergence of the street opposition a year ago.  Universal infighting and mutual recriminations regarding corruption could consume the regime.  And remember there is no shortage of corruption charges made against Putin himself by members of the opposition.

Tandem Rumblings

Things did not stop with bureaucratic disarray and corruption scandals.  Moscow’s rumor mill filled with talk of Medvedev’s impending dismissal, and a media campaign emerged highlighting various groups’ disenchantment with Medvedev, in particular from elements within the military.  On this background, Medvedev and Putin publicly aired their disagreement regarding a Russian court’s two-year prison sentence handed down against the now famous/infamous Pussy Riot demonstrators. Putin agreed with the verdict and sentence; Medvedev said he preferred their immediate release since they had already served sufficient time - five months in jail before and during the trial.  This week Medvedev held open the possibility of running for president once again, without mentioning any coordination with Putin.

Opposition Disarray

At the same time, the ‘white ribbon’ opposition movement is torn apart by ideological differences among democrats, nationalists, and communists.  Moreover, each ideological camp is in turn ravaged by disagreement, competition and the personal ambitions of leaders. This renders the opposition as ineffective as the government.  Last spring’s political reforms have enticed some opposition parties to focus on electoral politics, alienating more irreconcilable elements.  As noted above, Putin smartly has surgically targeted a cautious retrenchment or freeze of Medvedev’s thaw, and he has left the spring’s election reforms intact.  More recently, for a second time and more specifically, Putin broached the idea of returning to the direct election of the Federation Council’s senators and drafting the necessary constitutional amendments.

In sum, stagnation is the word, but the potential for change, including democratic, free market reform, remains.  Much will depend on the opposition’s ability to mobilize enough strength to pressure Putin to reform––while simultaneously avoiding scaring him into a tougher crackdown.  In that regard, the opposition’s December 15th ‘Freedom March’ may have something to say.
 
Gordon M. Hahn is Analyst/Consultant, Russia Other Points of View – Russia Media Watch; Senior Associate, Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC; Senior Researcher and Adjunct Professor, Monterey Terrorism Research and Education Program; and Senior Researcher, Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group. Dr Hahn is author of two well-received books, Russia’s Revolution From Above (Transaction, 2002) and Russia’s Islamic Threat (Yale University Press, 2007), which was named an outstanding title of 2007 by Choice magazine.  He has authored hundreds of articles in scholarly journals and other publications on Russian, Eurasian and international politics and founded and writes the CSIS Islam, Islamism, and Politics in Eurasia Report (IIPER) at https://csis.org/node/33013/publication.
 
Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D.
Senior Associate, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington, D.C.
Senior Researcher and Adjunct Professor, Monterey Terrorism Research and Education Program, Monterey, California
Analyst/Consultant, www.russiaotherpointsofview.com ghahn@miis.edu

Dr. Hahn is author of the well-received books Russia’s Islamic Threat (Yale University Press, 2007) and Russia’s Revolution From Above, 1985-2000 (Transaction Publishers, 2002) and numerous articles in academic journals and other English and Russian language media. He has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia. Dr. Hahn writes and edits the bimonthly 'Islam, Islamism, and Politics in Eurasia Report' at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. archived at http://csis.org/programs/russia-and-eurasia-program/islam-islamism-and-politics-eurasia-report and http://www.miis.edu/academics/faculty/ghahn/report.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Corruption. The OboronServis scandal expands with former Defence Ministry official (and, some say, former Minister Serdyukov’s girlfriend) Yevgeniya Vasilyeva  charged with large-scale fraud and placed under house arrest. A spokesman for the Investigative Committee said that companies controlled by the Ministry had embezzled more US$250 million this year; not, it appeared, just from this particular swindle. No charges have been laid against Serdyukov but they may be coming pending investigation. It is also reported that the new Minister has so far brought with him 14 senior people from his previous jobs which suggests that he wants people around him whom he can trust to be clean. In other investigations a case has been opened against two military officers in the Far East for embezzling ration money; a former officer of the Federal Drug Control Service was sentenced to jail for drug trafficking and an ex-FSB officer was arrested for fraud. We’re definitely touching the organs of state security here. Stay tuned.

Duumvirate. Levada finds a slow decline in Putin and Medvedev’s ratings, although each remains at over 50%; on the other hand VTsIOM finds United Russia is back to where it was a year ago – just under 50%. Still, by world standards, pretty high but another indication that Putin’s return might not have been such a good idea. He was the right man for the job then but is he now? The population seems to be coming to think not.

TANDEMOLOGY 2.0: PUTIN’S RETURN, MEDVEDEV’S DECLINE, AND TANDEM SPATS

COMMENTARY

by Gordon M. Hahn

The recent spate of spats between President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev again raises questions about the political relationship between the members of Russia’s ruling tandem. On September 25, Putin reprimanded the government for failure to produce a viable budget and three government ministers for failure to carry out his presidential orders.  The criticism was seen as a slap in Medvedev’s face.

In the next days Medvedev seemed to hit back.  Speaking at a business forum in Sochi, Medvedev referred to a 2008 incident when then prime minister Putin promised to “send a doctor and a prosecutor” to the billionaire owner of steel and coal producer Mechel who failed to attend an industry meeting with Putin because of illness.  At the time, Medvedev called for officials to stop “scaring businessmen.”  Medvedev now revived the disagreement, saying: “I think that in modern Russia, if we talk about business, unequivocal orders are being made in different ways, let's say, in proposals to send a doctor in for a cure. Russian business knows what I mean ... I wish we (would) start learning to live in a different way.”

NEITHER EAST NOR WEST FOR RUSSIA

REPRINTS

Sep 21, 2012 www.rt.com

The West has formed a political-military coalition that does not include Russia; China, a fiercely insular country has a historical wariness of building alliances. This forces Russia into a position of severe self-reliance and pragmatism.

Following his trip to Russia at the start of the Cold War, the American poet Robert Frost summed up his visit with the memorable line: “If you don't know how great this country is, I know someone who does; Russia.”

Whether Russians believe in their greatness or not, however, may be beside the point. Today, more than ever before, the country has been placed in a situation where it must rely on its own resources – and resourcefulness – to maintain its position as a global center of power. Indeed, there seems to be no other option.

"Russia should remain an independent power center,” Alexey Pushkov, Foreign Affairs Committee chairman of the Duma, told a press conference this week. “In fact, the international situation predetermines our choice."

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.” 

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Russia Inc. Some reported numbers for the first half of the year. The Finance Ministry reports that the federal budget is running a surplus of about US$8 billion. GDP is up 4.4% and industrial production by 3.2%. By today’s standards, these aren’t bad numbers. Population is reported to have grown by about 85,000 since the beginning of the year although it was immigration that made it into growth: despite improvements, natural increase is still negative. However births are growing faster than deaths. A VTsIOM poll finds that Russians say they are paying more attention to their health.

Popularity. I’m a little mystified by this report that a Levada poll finds a significant drop in Putin’s rating since the election. The Levada site (Google translation) doesn’t show any such thing: if anything his rating has squeaked up a bit. (Mind you the first is referring to an August poll while the site is still in July: but that quick a drop seems improbable). The opinion of whether Russia is going forwards or into a dead end is not much changed either. So as far as I can see Levada data doesn’t show any particular trend this year. However, taking it from August 1999, we do see a downward trend for both Putin and Medvedev but an upward trend in how the country is doing. Putin’s slippage from the heights began gently around the autumn of 2008 but the “index” (approve minus disapprove) only went below 50 at the end of 2010 and he’s still 67:32. (other politicians can, of course, only dream of such numbers). Does this mean anything? Perhaps Russians are getting tired of him (slowly); perhaps they are becoming more healthily sceptical about their leaders; perhaps Russia’s economic performance, which while good by today’s standards is less than it used to be, is affecting them. I still think that Putin’s decision to return was a mistake. We will see.

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. 

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Pressure. A prominent Russian businessman says he will sell all his assets in Russia and retire so as to end what he calls “relentless pressure from the authorities”, specifically from “Directorate K of the [FSB]”. He believes this began when the newspaper he part owns began an investigation of corruption in the FSB. He says he does not think the Kremlin is behind “my business… being purposefully and deliberately destroyed” but would like it to clarify its position. One of the Duumvirate ought to say something and soon.

Direction. A recent poll finds an increasing pessimism about the way Russia is developing: 35% think in the wrong direction (up from 26% in Feb 2009) and 31% in the right direction (down from 52%). However, before this is shoved into the latest idiotic editorial about the imminent collapse of “the Putin system”, we need a little context. 61% of Americans think their country is on the wrong track; 73% of British and 56% of EU inhabitants do too. So, as the real world runs, Russians are pretty upbeat.

Russia Inc. The EBRD has cut its growth forecast for Russia from 4.2% to 3.1% in 2012 and from 4.3% to 3.3% for 2013. It foresees lower demand for commodities in the Eurozone. Still, by present standards, not bad.

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.