Russia: Other Points of View

Jumping to Conclusions: The Washington Post’s Unjust Coverage of Russia’s Murders

COMMENTARY

by Gordon Hahn

An October 29^th Washington Post editorial again continued to distort reality in Russia’s North Caucasus.  The editorial follows the Post’s and U.S. mainstream media’s perverted practice of covering the North Caucasus only within the context of’ Russian human rights’ violations.  The Polish Foreign Minister and former Defense Minister Radek Sikorski’s wife, Anne Applebaum, the Post’s main Russia ‘observer’, probably penned the article. 

The Post editorial jumps to judgment in concluding that a single hand is behind the murders of courageous human rights defenders Anna Politkovskaya, Natalya Estemirova, Stanislav Markelov, Anastasia Baburova as well as Ingushetia opposition leader Maksharip Aushev, head of a Chechen children's charity Zarema Sadulayeva and her husband.  The Post claims that all the above were activists defending human rights in the Caucasus, and this common trait made them a target of forces dispatched or tolerated by Russian Prime Minister and former President Vladimir Putin. 

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Election fraud. Two opinion polls, both by Levada, give us data on how people say they voted in the elections last month. A poll of Muscovites (JRL/201/4) gives 46.1% for United Russia (official numbers 66.25%), 27.1% for the communists (13.3%), 11.8% for LDPR (6.13%), 7.9% for Just Russia (5.33%) and 3.7% for Yabloko (4.71%). A nation-wide poll asking the same question gives United Russia 47%, communists 13%, Just Russia 8%, LDPR 7% and Yabloko 2%. When the Yabloko leader said his vote hadn’t been counted at all, a recount was ordered and, lo! it was found that some Yabloko votes had “accidently” been miscounted. But these numbers do not give us a clear picture. Levada tells us that Muscovites voted communist at twice the rate of the nation; this seems improbable. Levada also tells us that fewer people voted for Yabloko than the official numbers give; this too seems improbable if the scenario were to inflate United Russia’s numbers and deflate the others. So, as always, an examination of the data we have deepens the mystery. The Yabloko leader has described what his people told him and it appears that fake voters was the preferred method. Medvedev met with the head of the CEC and said “All types of claims must be investigated thoroughly”. Well, we’ll see. These numbers make a prima facie cause for fraud favouring the pedestal party but leave us in the dark as to what degree of fraud there was.

LOCAL ELECTIONS IN RUSSIA

ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Response to New York Times "Why Russians Ignore Ballot Fraud" by Clifford J. Levy, October 25, 2009

by Gordon Hahn

The following New York Times article is correct only in its main point: It is true that the pro-Kremlin United Russia’s victory in Russia’s local elections (winning 60 percent of seats overall in hundreds of local mayoral and council elections, including the Moscow city council election) was exaggerated in the final results by the unfair playing field, the party’s access to ‘administrative resources, and various methods of ballot stuffing and vote count fraud.  Indeed, the last three sentences of the article relate an experience that I myself witnessed in the 2004 presidential elections.  Beyond the obvious and relatively belabored point of dishonest Russian elections, the NYT’s and author’s oversimplifications about the electoral and political system and their extreme prejudices about Russia and Russians taint the article.  It is yet another U.S. mainstream media article, masked as ‘news reporting’, functioning as biased opinion and providing no alternative points of view on the debatable points.  In short, it is a U.S. mainstream media classic.

To access the full analysis, please click here Download NYT_Levy_11_09

Memory of National Tragedies is as Sacred as the Memory of Victories

REPRINTS

www.Kremlin.ru

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Today is the Remembrance Day of Victims of Political Repression. Eighteen years has passed since this day was inaugurated as such in our calendar.

I am convinced that the memory of national tragedies is as sacred as the memory of victories. And it is extremely important that young people have not only historical knowledge but also civic spirit. That they be able to empathize with one of the greatest tragedies in the history of Russia. Regretfully, it is not always so.

Two years ago, sociologists conducted a survey and nearly 90 percent of our young citizens aged 18 to 24, failed to name famous people who suffered or died during those years of repression. And this, of course, cannot but be disturbing.

It is impossible to imagine now the scale of terror which affected all the peoples of our country and peaked in the years 1937-1938. The Volga river of people's grief, as Alexander Solzhenitsyn called it, the endless stream of repressed at that period.

MEDVEDEV: POLITICAL DUNCE, DUPE, DECEPTIONIST, OR DEMOCRAT?

COMMENTARY

by Gordon Hahn 

For nearly a decade Russia has been living under a stealth-like soft authoritarianism, not a 'managed democracy', as many persist in calling the regime. Last week's local elections removed the cloaking device from the system's no longer stealth-like dagger.  'You Tube' and various Russian websites exposed efforts to control and falsify the vote, the bulk of which were undertaken by supporters of the authorities' party, United Russia, although not necessarily at the request of Medvedev or Putin.  

This is not to say that the election results were completely falsified.  In some regions, such as in the North Caucasus republics of Adygeya and Karachaevo-Cherkessia, opposition candidates managed to win mayoral elections in the second largest cities in both of those republics.  However, on the whole and especially in the important city council vote in Moscow, the elections were a real abomination.  Hence, even Russia's 'managed opposition' perceived the demise of Russia's hitherto virtual democracy. 

October 11's elections exposed President Dmitry Medvedev either negatively as a political dunce, dupe, or deceptionist - or more positively as a skillful reformer maneuvering in an authoritarian-friendly environment.  Which conclusion you come to depends on what your interpretation of the politics surrounding the elections is.  Which one is right will be borne out by Medvedev's (and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's) future actions.  

WORKING WITH RUSSIA TO PREVENT EURASIAN COLLAPSE

REPRINTS

by Andrey Tsygankov

RFERL, Oct 29, 2009 

The Eurasian region continues to disintegrate, and neither Russia nor the West has been able to arrest the destabilizing dynamics.

Evidence of rising instability throughout the region include the August 2008 Russia-Georgia war, renewed terrorist attacks in the North Caucasus, the persistent failure of Western forces to stabilize Afghanistan, the inability of Central Asian rulers to reign in local clans and drug lords, and the paralysis of legitimately elected bodies of power in Ukraine and Moldova.

Violence is gradually spreading, waiting for an opportunity to erupt into a large-scale conflict. Transregional transportation routes may soon be choked due to Russia's conflicts with Ukraine, Georgia, and Turkmenistan.

The West's attempts to secure and stabilize Eurasia after the end of the Cold War must be recognized as a failure. In the mid-1990s, U.S. geostrategists such as Zbigniew Brzezinski recommended that the United States pursue a policy of replacing Russia as the referee and protector of the newly established non-Russian states in the region. After initial hesitation, the United States and other Western states followed this advice.

Yet Eurasia has not become stable or peaceful and continues to disintegrate. The bureaucrats in Washington and Brussels have failed to understand that they lack the resources, the will, and the experience to stabilize the complex region. Today -- after the Iraq war and the global financial crisis -- the United States is beginning to recognize its overextension, but it is not at all clear if Washington and Brussels are prepared to act differently in Eurasia.

Continue reading this article 

RUSSIA'S REFORMIST GOVERNOR

REPRINTS

The Dissident Who Came In From the Cold Nikita Belykh is radically remaking Russia's vast Kirov region. The country's democratic future may depend on his success.

By Owen Matthews and Anna Nemtsova

Newsweek, November 2, 2009 

Dozens of villagers are lined up at the gates of the decrepit local boatyard on a breezy Saturday morning to witness an unheard-of event. They gaze in wonder as the visitor arrives: never in living memory has a regional governor paid a call to the backwater town of Arkul, on the Vyatka River, roughly 500 miles northeast of Moscow. Climbing out of his battered Land Cruiser in scuffed jeans and a New York Yankees cap, Nikita Belykh makes a startling contrast to Russia's standard-issue provincial bureaucrats.

Looks are the least of the differences: Belykh made his name opposing those entrenched post-Soviet apparatchiks as one of the most determined pro-democracy activists in the country. Old friends were shocked and angry when he abruptly abandoned their street protests and took a Kremlin appointment as governor of Kirov oblast, deep in Russia's neglected heartland. But Belykh is tackling his new job with all the energy he used to radiate as an opposition leader. He immediately begins peppering the boatyard's director with questions, especially about what needs fixing. "Tell me what you do!" Belykh says briskly. "Tell me everything!" 

UKRAINE-RUSSIA TENSION IN CRIMEA?

ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Response to Washington Post "Ukraine-Russia Tensions Evident in Crimea - Kremlin Asserting Its Influence in Region" by Philip P. Pan, Oct 6, 2009

by Gordon Hahn

The Washington Post article reviewed below is yet another one from the paper littered with one-sided opinion masquerading as news.  The article is yet another that insinuates into readers’ minds the view that Russia is planning aggression against Ukraine and is solely to blame for the deterioration in relations between the two countries.  It contains numerous inaccurate statements, claims unsupported by data or facts, and a consistently one-sided perspective.  It should be noted that this article follows a summer replete with articles in the Post and other mainstream media and other news outlets purporting to show that Russia would attack Georgia this summer.  ROPV continues to wait and see when these predictions will be borne out in and whether anyone else will hold the U.S. mainstream media responsible in any way for its misleading reporting.

To access the full analysis, please click here Download WP_Pan_6_Oct_09

RUSSIA LAUNCHES INTERNET PORTAL To FIGHT 'FALSIFICATION OF HISTORY'

REPRINTS 

Interfax Agency

Moscow, 21 October: A project called Runivers has been launched in Russia. It offers to all Internet users free access to original historical materials, which will make it possible to counter attempts to falsify Russian history, the head of the project: 

"The purpose of our project is to provide free access to original documents, books and texts on Russian history, which are kept in major libraries and state archives," said Mikhail Baranov, the president of the board of the Runivers, a non-commercial organization for the creation and development of a historical and cultural electronic encyclopedia and library, This was reported at a news conference on Wednesday (21 October). 

Baranov said: "We want to return original books and encyclopedias on Russian history published in the late 19th - early 20th century into cultural circulation." 

He added that at the moment the project has 600 books, however by the end of the year it is planned to upload some 1,000 more books. 

One of the sections will feature documents on topical political issues, which are being actively discussed, in particular compilations of documents on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Katyn case, on how the Crimea, Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Kuril Islands and East Prussia joined Russia. 

FEIGNING BALANCE: WASHINGTON POST MASKS ATTACK ON RUSSIA AS ATTACK ON OBAMA

COMMENTARY

by Gordon Hahn

The Washington Post recently produced a harsh and unprecedented critique of President Barak Obama’s early foreign policy steps written by Charles Krauthammer.  The harsh words, leveled against the liberal president on the pages of the liberal paper, were most striking.  Even more striking was the deal, implicit or explicit, that must have been cut.  In return for allowing Krauthammer to vent against the president, the Washington Post got an attack on its favorite enemy, Moscow.

Whether Krauthammer understood apriori that the vitriol of his article required attaching an additional critique that the Post’s editors would approve of, or whether there was a quid pro quo demanded by the editors remains unclear but in the end is unimportant.  What is important is a harsh critique of a liberal and non-Republican U.S. president appearing on the Post’s pages with the proper ‘compensation.’

The Krauthammer article delivered that and then some 462 words were devoted to criticizing Obama’s Russia policy and Russia, but only 288 were left for Obama’s other foreign policy mistakes.  Krauthammer focused particularly on “Obama's single most dramatic foreign policy stroke -- the sudden abrogation of missile defense arrangements with Poland and the Czech Republic that Russia had virulently opposed.”  In the Post’s and Krauthammer’s mind, this ‘mistake’ outweighs Obama’s “national self-denigration” policy, Clinton’s dropping human rights in forming America’s China agenda and the absurdity of the Nobel prize Committee accepting Obama’s nomination as a prize recipient mere days after his inauguration and then awarding him that prize in lieu of any accomplishments.

WHY THE US-RUSSIA RELATIONSHIP IS SO CHALLENGING

IN MY HUMBLE OPINION

by Sharon Tennison

Dear Friends,

Many of you know that I've spent 27 years working across all parts of the US and Russia to develop constructive relations between these two countries. Being still at it, I've decided to write a 12-part email series of what's behind the relationship that makes it so challenging.

The topics will include:  Why the US-Russia Relationship is so Challenging (included below);  Putin, Dictator or What?;  the Medvedev/Putin Relationship;  US-Russia, 1000 Years of Cultural Differences;  Corruption, Forever a part of Russia?;  Is Russia ready for Democracy?;  Russia's Pressure on Eastern European Countries; Media Muzzling, Facts and/or Fiction;  Journalists' Murders - Putin or Who;  the US/Russia/Iran Conundrum; the Russia/Georgia/US Facts; the Russia/Ukraine/US Equation;  Russia's NGOs, the On Ground Reality;  Russia's Political Opposition - Fiction and Facts; US-Russia Relations, Can the Quagmire be Healed?;  Oligarchs: Democrats/ Robbers/Contributors?;  and other issues you may submit. Your suggestions or comments will be welcomed.

~~~~~~~~~~~
SERIES #1

WHY THE US-RUSSIA RELATIONSHIP IS SO CHALLENGING?

OP-ED to NEW YORK TIMES and INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE

ROPV CONTRIBUTORS

by Nick Sluchevsky

In the contemporary world where mainstream media go out of their way to provide ‘balance’, it is truly extraordinary that the New York Times persists in its Russia reporting with such an apparent negative bias. For a liberal and intellectual newspaper that is expected to be a beacon of excellent journalism – which, for the most part it is – I continue to find this perplexing.

Clifford Levy’s recent article is a perfect case-in-point. The Oct.18^th lead informs readers that “Nearly two decades after the collapse of the Communist Party, Russia’s rulers have hit upon a model for future success: the Communist Party.” This is both sensational and completely incorrect. Frankly, I found it rather embarrassing. To begin with, China’s primary economic model is pure capitalism, as evidenced by their colossal success over the years. For an American audience this should prove to be a positive comparison. But that is not the comparison Levy seeks to make. The use of the pejorative ‘Communist Party’ clearly attempts to draw the reader to the belief that Russia – especially under Putin – has been sliding back to its Soviet roots. By extension, this approach seeks to establish a conflict situation between the US and Russia along ideological grounds.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Election fraud. There are objective and perfectly understandable reasons for United Russia to win most elections in Russia. The population supports its leaders and, consequently, extends that support to their pedestal. In fact, Levada’s most recent numbers show United Russia with more than one and a half times as much support as all the others combined. The losers always charge vote fraud but usually it ends there. This time, the three losers, LDPR, KPRF and Just Russia actually walked out of the Duma in protest (all have now returned); there have been some small protests, the Communists are demanding the resignation of the Head of the CEC and says it will be holding rallies today. So this one has better legs (and supporting detail) than the pro-forma protests of earlier times. We will see what happens. Again, however, I stress that a consideration of polling numbers over time shows that United Russia is bound to win; cheating only determines the scale of that win (so, indeed, why do it at all?) Medvedev once murmured something about reducing the 7% threshold. I believe 7% is too high for Russia’s conditions (unless, of course, its purpose is to produce enormous United Russia majorities across the country) and it would be better to go back to the old 5% threshold. But there is no “correct” number and there is great variation across the world.

RUSSIA'S TILT TOWARD CHIINA

ROPV CONTRIBUTORS

by Andrey Tsygankov

Russia is increasingly unable to resist the charm of China’s economic and political influence. As Russia’s relatively low productivity translates into declining competitiveness, China’s ways of influencing the north continue to expand.

Even routine domestic economic decisions in Russia are increasingly made with a consideration for China. For instance, Beijing sent a delegation to Moscow in July to negotiate conditions of a large group of ethnic Chinese affected by the Moscow government’s decision to close the large Cherkizovsky Market following multiple violations of labor and immigration law. Headed by Beijing’s deputy trade minister, the delegation negotiated restoration of the trading area on condition of a Chinese $1 billion investment.

But in recognition of the growing need for China’s investments and export markets, Russia was unwilling to press environmental claims against its neighbor when it polluted the Amur River.

China’s rising importance has translated into the growing prominence of the Sinophiles in Russia’s national discussions. Since the end of the Soviet Union, the China discourse has evolved from one dominated by the Westernizers to one largely controlled by the Sinophiles, who have supporters in the government, energy firms with ties to Asia and the military-industrial complex.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Regional elections. Elections were held across Russia on Sunday and, as usual, United Russia dominated the results. The losing parties have charged fraud and walked out of the Duma on Wednesday in protest. What are we to make of this? It is very likely there was a degree of fraud, both from the top of the power pyramid and from the bottom. But there are objective reasons for the domination of United Russia. It is the party in power and the population has showed, in innumerable opinion polls, that it approves of the people in power; approval of Medvedev and Putin is easily transferred to their pedestal party. Some opposition parties have been led by the same people for 15 years: why should anyone decide that Zhirinovskiy and Zyuganov, who have been rejected time and time again, suddenly have the answers? As to the others, Yabloko, while it has a new leader, marginalised itself by its repeated refusal to collaborate with like-minded people, Just Russia has never really got off the ground and Other Russia is a stunt for Western naïfs. Therefore, in my opinion, fraud, pressure and the like can account for the margin of victory but not for the victory itself. The Russian “opposition” has found a comfortable niche which is personally profitable to its leaders while United Russia gets things done. Not an ideal situation to be sure, but one which many hands have made.

THE YELTSIN SCANDAL

ROPV CONTRIBUTORS

By William Dunkerley

A stone drunk Boris Yeltsin stood across from the White House in Washington. He was there in his underwear hailing a taxi. In his stupor, Yeltsin just wanted to go out for a pizza.

That bizarre incident from the 90s made the news recently. The PR blitz for a book by Taylor Branch about the Clinton presidency seems to have propelled the story.

But those Yeltsin antics of inebriation aren't the scandal here. Indeed, the recently-circulated story was not actually news. The whole tale had been told earlier by Strobe Talbott in his book on Clinton presidential diplomacy. It was released in 2002 and garnered media attention back then.

So then what is the "Yeltsin Scandal"? The crux of it is the Western press' inexplicably lenient treatment of the Yeltsin presidency, especially in comparison to his successors.

IN AN INVASION, WHEN CAN A SPADE BE CALLED A SPADE?

ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Response to Wall Street Journal Europe "Europe Exposes Russia's Guilt in Georgia" by Svante E. Cornell, October 2, 2009 

by Gordon Hahn 

The WSJ Europe article reviewed below provides an exceedingly one-sided view of the EU report on the cases, conduct, and consequences of the August 2008 Five-Day Georgian-Ossetian/Russian War.

To access the full analysis, please click here Download GH_WSJ_Cornell_2Oct2009

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Missile Defence. Medvedev has formally announced, after some confusion (again!) from various spokesmen, that the deployment of Iskander Missiles to Kaliningrad has been cancelled (they never were actually deployed – it was always conditional). Yesterday the Foreign Minister Lavrov said that the new US plans presented no risks for Russia, good conditions were present for dialogue and that Moscow and Washington would soon hold talks on missile defence. Of course: Moscow was concerned when the idea was to stop ICBMs, but defence against medium- and short- range missiles doesn’t bother it. On the other hand, Russia’s UN Ambassador said that it would complicate nuclear disarmament. I have often wished the Russian Foreign Ministry would get a better grip on its people and stop this dribble of confusing and partially contradictory statements. Mind you, NATO’s no better:  it is asking for help while encouraging Tbilisi’s NATO aspirations. What message will any of the suspicious people out there take from these pairs of statements?

EU Report. The report was published last week. It is probably not a coincidence that the next day PACE rejected Tbilisi’s motion to deprive Russia of voting rights. Nino Burjanadze has accused the government of covering up the report; while Saakashvili has hailed it as complete vindication some Georgians are claiming that Russian money is to be found there.  I regard it as rather little, rather late, naïve and incomplete; my argument is here. But at least it knows who started the war.

THE EU REPORT: LITTLE AND LATE

COMMENTARY

by Patrick Armstrong

The long-delayed Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia was finally issued on 30 September, 13 months after the war. It is to be found here: Vol I (Introductory); Vol II (Report); Vol III (Submitted material). In what follows quotations are from the BBC-supplied version (which is somewhat faster loading). Generally speaking, I regard it as rather little, rather late, naïve and incomplete. It is also excruciatingly delicate – even precious – in what it says and what it avoids saying. It concludes with a number of unexceptionable, but rather vague, recommendations.

It is incomplete because it, evidently seeing the conflict as one between Georgia and Russia as other commentators have, leaves the Ossetians out. While the authors feel it useful to give some historical background on Georgia, going back to the Treaty of Georgievsk in 1783, there is no equivalent discussion of the Ossetian (or Abkhazian) point of view. But, if asked, Ossetians would certainly speak of their unwillingness to be part of Georgia and refer to earlier Georgian attacks in 1920 and 1991. Their arguments for independent status (here is Abkhazia’s) should be heard out even if they are to be refuted. Tendentious perhaps but a significant factor in Ossetian (and Abkhazian) perceptions. The fact is that the Ossetians, rightly or wrongly, do not want to be part of Georgia, fought for their independence when the Russian Empire collapsed, were placed in the Georgian SSR by Stalin-Jughashvili, tried to be excluded from it when the USSR collapsed, fought another independence war and, very probably, stopped the Georgian attack before the Russian forces got there (some Tskhinvali combat footage at 7:50). To leave their point of view out of the Report is to be incomplete. Added to which, the discussion about their citizenship (the authors assert that they were Georgian citizens) is to altogether ignore their contention that, while they were certainly Soviet citizens in 1991, they never agreed to becoming Georgian citizens. Indeed the world recognised Georgia, in the borders that Stalin gave it, while the disputes in South Ossetia and Abkhazia were actually going on.

THE WASHINGTON POST's RAMPAGE ON OBJECTIVITY AND TRUTH

COMMENTARY

By Gordon Hahn 

Washington Post's October 3 editorial sunk below the paper's already dismal record of partisanship and Russophobia, by falsifying the causality and conduct of the August 2008 Georgian-Russian Five-Day War.  In this particular editorial the WP built its grossly one-sided narrative using not just its traditional practice of negligent and intentional omissions, unsupported and unsupportable claims, and inaccuracies,  but also downright lies. Let's take each in turn. 

The editorial's first charge against Russia is that it had been "overtly preparing for war for months before its troops began their rampage." Of course, the fact that any nation prepares for war does not mean it wants war.  In fact, quite often the contrary is the case: states prepare for war to deter it.  Deterrence is most likely to be the purpose, if war preparations are undertaken "overtly" as Russia's were, and as the WP itself acknowledges. The WP editorial omits that Saakashvili had been planning for war in secret, according to several Rose revolutionaries and former allies of Georgian President Saakashvili, including a former parliament speaker and a former defense minister. Indeed, according to the latter, who participated in Georgia's war planning, Saakashvili had been developing war plans to forcibly reintegrate both South Ossetia and Abkhazia not for months, but for years.  It is likely that Russian secret services were well aware of Saakashvili's plans, and the Kremlin planned accordingly.  Naturally, the WP leaves out these inconvenient truths, for they would spoil the WP's Russophobic narrative of Russia's eternal, all-encompassing blame for every problem facing the post-Soviet and post-communist states.  The fact is that the five-day Georgia-provoked war was the tragic consequence of the messy Soviet state construction and collapse compounded by leadership lapses in Tbilisi, Tskhinvali, Washington, Moscow, Brussels and Strasbourg.