August 19, 2007
This blog is fairly dead, but I wanted to make this point here.
Russia (effectively) banning the BBC has finally convinced me that, to quote from my e-mail to my former academic advisor:
“A. The government is on a path towards autocracy, and
“B. It profoundly, profoundly misunderstands the West.”
Amazing.
What on earth are they thinking in Moscow?!
June 14, 2007
Both correspondents for “Notes from Russia” are busy with personal business immediately post-graduation. I’m in Toronto with the family, and McCluskey is — if memory serves — in Washington right now meeting with the Fulbright folks. But I’ll break radio silence because this article is particularly interesting, given the salience of the question of what will happen with the parliamentary elections this fall and the presidential elections next March.
Dmitrii Medvedev, first vice-premier, head of Russia’s ‘national project’, and one of a number of potential heirs to President Putin, appeared before the Duma yesterday. Gazeta.ru had the story.
Headline: “Unneeded questions aren’t needed”
First vice-premier Dmitrii Medvedev went to the State Duma on Wednesday. Although he himself discussed the problem of (apartment) utilities/maintenance fees, the people’s representatives were more interested by the question of whether Medvedev was heading a certain secret commission on amendments to the Constitution.
(more…)
June 1, 2007
This is an interview given by Rossiisakaya Gazeta, a pro-government newspaper with Boris Grizlov, the chairman of United Russia, the most pro-Kremlin party in Russia today. He discusses the party’s preparation for the Duma elections in December and the presidential elections next year, the problems in Estonia, economic and social plans and his opinion on Medvedev and Ivanov.
[Ben's thoughts: See, see -- Putin's leaving. Told you so. All of this stuff about jockeying to show who is the heir to his policy course -- this is natural and healthy, following the tenure of a wildly popular leader. In a somewhat more authoritarian strain, mind you. But this is good.]
The plan for victory
Boris Grizlov believes that the United Russians will receive a majority – first in the Duma and then in the government
Today in Moscow United Russia is carrying out an expanded meeting of the general council of the party.
About the plans of the party in the two upcoming election campaigns – for the Duma and the presidency – the speaker of the State Duma and the leader of “United Russia”, Boris Grizlov, spoke with Rossiiskaya Gazeta.
Boris Vyacheslavovich, you are the leader of the largest and most influential party in the country, are you planning to put yourself on the ballot for president in 2008?
I don’t share this peremptory opinion that the party, while nominating a candidate for president, should always nominate their chairman. The developed democracies in Europe and North America show that it is not done like this. We, of course, in Russia also have our own democratic roots and our own democratic traditions. Therefore, at the meeting, which our party is planning to have at the beginning of October, before the elections in the State Duma, we will, naturally discuss the question of the federal three and the lists for the deputies of the lower chamber of parliament. But the question about the candidate which we will nominate for the presidential elections in 2008, the party will discuss only after the elections for the State Duma, most likely, at a new meeting in the middle of December. For now, I can only say that the nomination of the chairman of the party is not obligatory for United Russia, and I think that we should nominate a candidate who really, with the support of the party, will safeguard the continuity of the current president’s course.
And therefore your pre-election project, which you intend to offer to voters, is even called the “Plan of Putin” by the party. Tell me, why can United Russia not offer its own strategy for development?
Listen, all eight of Vladimir Putin’s state of the union addresses for United Russia are not independent, incomplete documents, but a complex strategy of development for the country.
In each of the addresses tactical, concrete tasks were identified, which consequently have been fulfilled and are being fulfilled, and in the second place, are strategic goals.
May 31, 2007
Felix Kulov was a key member of the Tulip Revolution which swept Askar Akayev from power in March 2005 in Kyrgyzstan. He was appointed by the current President, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, following his electoral victory in the summer of 2005. Kulov resigned from the position in December 2006 and in February of this year began the United Front for a Worthy Future for Kyrgyzstan, a coalition of Kyrgyz politicians who stand opposed to the “corrupt” policies of Bakiyev.
Considering my inability to find any further articles in the Russian press about Kulov’s statement, it appears Kulov’s expression of extreme friendliness is not reciprocated. At this current time, the only Kyrgyz land which Russia appears to want is the acreage for their military bases (Kant). This is not surprising. The difficulties of union - for Kyrgyzstan and Russia both - would prove immense. Moreover, a union would signal the reemergence of a strong, expansionist Russia - a movement which Putin has attempted to play down.
Felix Kulov is standing up for the creation of a confederation of Russia and Kyrgyzstan
The leader of the United Oppositional Front “For a Worthy Future for Kyrgyzstan”, Felix Kulov, is not ruling out the possibility of a political union of Kyrgyzstan with Russia. He spoke about this in an interview with the Kyrgyz Television Channel NBT this month.
Kylov announced that the initiative group of the United Front brought up for discussion in the Kurultu (the Kyrgyz Parliament) a question about the creation of an interstate union of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan and the Russian Federation on the principle of confederation given the conditions of preserving the state system and national sovereignty. “The citizens of Kyrgyzstan who live and work in Russia, while strengthening the economy of Russia, are helping their countrymen here”, said the former prime minister. “In this way, not with words, but in actual reality, people are voting with their feet for a union with Russia. What remains is to form some kind of entity.”
Such a union, according to the words of Kulov, will be disadvantageous, above all, for those “who are located on the trough and are pilfering the state”. According to his opinion, the union with Russia presumes “some forms of control with a joint budget, a joint custom regime, a joint economic space, and perhaps, a single currency”. “Maybe there will even be a single parliament” – Kulov said. In order to realize this stated initiative, opponents intend to begin the collection of 300,000 signatures with the goal of calling a nation-wide referendum for voting on the given question, notes Ferghana.ru.
Russian version, courtesy of Izvesita.ru
May 31, 2007
This editorial is from Rossiiskaya Gazeta, a newspaper with close links to the Russian government. It discusses Russia’s recent suggestion to form a cartel similar to OPEC which would regulate global natural gas supply. The author boasts of the strong hand of Russia in the global energy sector, a hand which received more sinews recently with the agreement between Russia, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan regarding the transit route for Central Asia supplies.
I’m afraid Mr. Konstantin does have room for boasting, and Westerners, given the Federation’s past use of oil as a weapon, should have cause for alarm.
Nervous Breaths
Konstantin Simonov, the director of the Center for Political Competition of Russia, Published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on May 24, 2007
A very real struggle is proceeding in the gas sector, which is taking on an increasingly violent character
At the present time, we are entering into an absurd situation, when the US Congress is adopting laws, which concern questions lying outside American jurisdiction. Indeed, what relation does the US have to OPEC, in which it is not a member? In connection with this matter, one should be reminded of the words of President Vladimir Putin: “the comrade wolf knows who to eat and is not about to listen to anyone.”*
As a whole, the very sharp reaction of the USA and the European Union shows that the Americans are nervous. And this means that Russia has hit the nail on the head.
May 31, 2007
This is a post from Abkhazia.com, a website which opposes the Russian Federation’s activities in Abkhazia, an autonomous republic of Georgia. It was written by Vasili Rukhadze, a Georgian political analyst. I think it is a particularly worthwhile to read, especially in light of Putin’s statements labeling the US as an “imperialist power”. The article chronicles the recent aggressive maneuvers by the Russian Federation against neighboring states. I have pasted the conclusion below. For the article in its entirety please see the following link:
http://www.abkhazia.com/content/view/121/2/
Russia’s Geopolitical Counteroffensive in the Former Soviet Union
- Vasili Rukhadze
Russia lost a great deal of influence in 1990’s and then in the first years of the new millennia, following the American invasion of Afghanistan and Georgian and Ukrainian revolutions in countries of the former Soviet Union. However, Putin’s Russia never gave up its hegemonic aspirations. But Moscow also realized that economically week Russia, with a disastrous war still going in Chechnya, couldn’t afford an ambitious foreign policy. Putin’s Russia rose quietly and gradually. After the September 11 attacks, Putin agreed to let Americans establish military bases in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. In fact Russia could do very little to stop Washington at that time. However, in exchange Russia got a free hand in Chechnya. By 2004-2005 Moscow basically crushed the Chechen rebellion killing the main Chechen field commanders. At the same time the Kremlin consolidated Russia’s entire energy sector in the state’s hands, sending disobedient oligarchs to jails or exile. Moscow gradually acquired about 30%-40% of Europe’s energy markets and unfolded a large scale geopolitical counter-offensive in the countries of the former Soviet Union.
Russia’s tactics were basically the same against post-Soviet states: Moscow allies with semi-authoritarian, corrupt, stagnant and isolated regimes (Uzbekistan, Belarus, Tajikistan) guaranteeing their survival in exchange for their obedience to Moscow. Under the banner of keeping stability in a country and in a wider region Russia poses as a policeman, supporting regimes militarily in case of domestic turbulence. Then Russia establishes (or expands already existing) military presence in a country, tightly chaining a nation’s military complex to its own (Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan). Simultaneously Russian state monopolies move in on a country, establishing their dominance on a nation’s energy resources (Turkmenistan), energy infrastructure (Armenia, Tajikistan) and their transportation routes (Kazakhstan). In the beginning, the Kremlin backed Russian companies promise many investments, not only in energy sector but also in other sectors of economy, such as telecom, tourism, transportation. However, Moscow never invests enough (or any) capital to make meaningful change. It merely chains local economies to its own, guarantees its dominance, prevents international economic competition and leaves local societies frustrated and impoverished (Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Belarus, Armenia).
Against pro-Western post-Soviet countries Russia deploys various tactics: supports shady separatist regimes (against Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan); cuts off gas supplies and astronomically raises prices (Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Azerbaijan); applies economic sanctions (Moldova, Georgia); manipulates elections in cooperation with local corrupt and criminal elites (Ukraine); detonates local pro-Russian or Russian forces (Georgia, Ukraine, Estonia).
May 31, 2007
In a follow up to yesterday’s comments, Putin today labeled the US an imperialist power which implements its foreign policy through diktat. For the most recent article on this affair, please see the Yahoo.news link below. Notes from Russia will try to provide a complete transcript of the news conference with the Greek minister later today.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070531/ts_afp/russiauspolitics_070531140349
Unfortunately, rhetorical attacks against the US go a long way in bolstering domestic support for regimes and governments throughout the world. One would like to think this dynamic is exclusive to the ruling parties of Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea or Iran. The elections in Germany and France in 2002 and 2007 respectively, however, showed that parties on the left in Europe are willing to dabble in such sentiments when their backs are against the wall—with varying degrees of success.
In a country such as Russia, which has a history of confrontation with the US, these rhetorical attacks and premonitions of a neo-American threat to Russian power ring true among much of the population. In making such comments, Putin hopes to win national democrats to his side, who, lacking the specter of an American threat, might be willing to support oppositional parties. Putin also hopes to create a dyad, whereby any opposition to the current government is interpreted in the media and among the population as tacit support for American actions.
Internationally, such rants against American foreign policy have also proven a worthwhile endeavor, especially over the last five years. Hugo Chavez has shown how a leader can use the power of the tongue and the oil barrel to become an hemispheric power. The same can be said for Ahmadinejad, whose anti-Americanism has increased his support and sympathy among members of the European and American left. Putin, too, wishes to use this template of anything American as bad—a sentiment prevalent on European streets—to increase the credibility and power of Russia.
In short, Putin’s recent statements provide a great deal of utility by way of domestic and international audiences. By juxtaposing Russia’s foreign policy against a US foreign policy, which is almost ubiquitously labeled as “imperialist”, “evil”, and “self-serving” in the European media, Putin hopes to enable his increasingly assertive foreign policy to be interpreted with more sympathetic overtones. Putin is definitely playing for the hearts, herzen, and couers of our old allies. Let’s hope he doesn’t win them over.
May 29, 2007
Notes from Russia is trying to get a hold of a complete transcript of Putin’s remarks on missile defense which were made today. If available in English, we will post them below. If in Russian, a translation will be provided.
MOSCOW. May 29 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin has cautioned against turning Europe into a “powder keg”, referring to Washington’s plans to deploy elements of its missile defense system in Europe. “We consider it harmful and dangerous to turn Europe into a “powder keg” and to fill it with new kinds of weapons,” Putin told a news conference after talks with the Portuguese prime minister in Moscow. “It creates new unneeded risks for the entire system of international and European relations,” he said.
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=11757136
UPDATE: The comments came in a press conference between the Portuguese Prime Minister and Mr. Putin. Below you will find a Kremlin press release on the meeting. Apparently, a complete transcript of the meeting will be provided on kremlin.ru. When that is, we will post it as well. The particular comments are near the end of the press release and are bolded.
Press Statement Following Talks with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates
May 29, 2007
The Kremlin, Moscow Printer-Friendly VersionPRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good afternoon dear ladies and gentlemen!
I am glad to be able to welcome the Prime Minister of Portugal, Mr Socrates, to Moscow. Mr Prime Minister has already visited Russia: he took part in the events commemorating the 60th anniversary of the victory over fascism. However, this is the first official visit Mr Socrates has made to Russia.
May 29, 2007
This piece is from the Moskauer Deutsche Zeitung (the Moscow German Newspaper). Although several months old, it does a decent job of recounting the March elections. It notes the strong showing of United Russia and Justice Russia, two parties whose positions are closely aligned with the Kremlin. It also briefly mentions the 7 percent threshold which parties needed to cross in order to gain seats in the regional legislative assemblies.
The Kremlin wins – either way
“United Russia” is victorious in the regional elections, but that is not enough
The Parliament elections which were carried out in the middle of March in the 14 regions served as a dress rehearsal for the voting for the State Duma in December. The conclusion: a Kremlin Party will win. The question is only which one.
The regional elections in the middle of March served as a dress rehearsal for the federal parliamentary elections in December. In the three regions (Moscow, St. Petersburg and Daghestan) the seats were assigned after a purely proportional representation. This will also be the case in the December elections. But another important improvement in the federal election was implemented in many regions—so, for example, the barring clause of seven percent.
May 29, 2007
This is an article from Izvestia, a relatively large publication inside Russia. The newspaper has close ties to the government through its financing. It was purchased by Gazprom on June 3, 2005. Its views are therefore very reflective of official government positions.
In this article the topic of the American deployment of anti-missile defense in Europe is discussed. The article is very long and winding. I regret that I don’t have enough time to translate it in its entirety. I have included the first paragraph and a few short paragraphs from the end of the article.
The translated pieces provide a very brief insight into how the media portrays the deployment of missile defense as a direct threat to Russia. The first paragraph tries to spread the fear among readers that military experts are not coming clean about the true magnitude of the threat. The second section details the possibility of a US first-strike.
The entire article is formulated to create a sense of fear and desperation among the Russian reader. Although it is true that missile defense will constrain the ability of the Russian government to act in certain scenarios, the likelihood of a US first-strike is a very remote or nonexistent possibility. Although I would like to think the US government is capable of creating a missile defense system capable of stopping 100 percent of the tens of thousands of Russian missiles, I don’t think this is likely anytime in the near future. So long as this is not a possibility, Russia has nothing to worry about. Between the Eagle and the Bear, MAD is still alive and well.
Anti-Missile Defense: masked under defense, but created for attack
The President of Poland, Lech Kachinsky spoke against the mediation of NATO in the negotiations about the allocation to his country of the American system of missile defense. “If we ask all members of the alliance, there are those among them, whose opinion on this question completely depends on the position on Moscow. Missile defense, it is possible, will never be created” – announced Kachinski. The USA is trying to position 10 missile interceptors in Poland, and also to build a radar station in the Czech Republic. The conflict surrounding American missile defense, which once seemed very tight and important only for specialists, has become in the last several years a theme which is being widely discussed. However the torrent of information is only obscuring the essence of the matter. The real goals of the creation, the true consequences, and also the scenario of the application of missile defense, commentators are leaving off-camera. And this is most likely intended. The problem evidently is so serious, that people who recognize its full depth prefer to use euphemisms, which are only understood to those, like them, who are connoisseurs of the matter.
And the matter consists in the fact that in reality we are standing before a fundamental turn in the global strategic resistance between the US and Russia.
………..
How to reflect aggression?
The leadership of Russia certainly is very familiar with such scenarios. Otherwise how do you explain the fact of our active protests concerning the deployment of American missile defense? Naturally, we do not know how the country is prepared for the resistance of such threats. However, it is possible to presume some things. You see, the success, per se, of staving off aggression depends on the ability to detect the fact of the launch of cruise missiles from the region of the Kara Sea (near the Barents Sea). And as far as it is known from open sources, the work on the creation of a single state system of coverage of surface and submarine conditions, in correspondence with the decree of the president of Russia, began in 2001. It is supposed that this is underway.
If the launch of missiles is noticed, the president and the government, which will be furnished with a question on the existence itself of the Russian state, will have at a minimum 2 and ½ hours before the strike of our objects.
