Russia: Other Points of View

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP

By Patrick Armstrong

SAAKASHVILI AND RUSSIAN OPPOSITION. Remember when Moscow said a Georgian politician had secretly met with Russian oppositionists? Remember when everyone laughed? (“risible charges” details “immediately suspicious” “political”) Well, Saakashvili just admitted it. Once again, Moscow turns out to be closer to the truth than the others.

DISAGREEMENT. It’s a common assumption in the West that no one dares disagree with Putin. Not so. Lawyers from 80 firms have issued an open letter protesting the proposal to merge the Supreme Arbitration Court into the Supreme Court. The billionaire and politician Mikhail Prokhorov has joined many others against a proposal to modify the rules on tax investigations. We shall see.

REPORTING. If anyone thinks there’s much difference between reporting on Russia and outright propaganda, compare these stories. Anti-gay laws bar Selena Gomez from Russia. Elton John will perform despite homophobia.  They can’t both be true, can they? Does anyone actually spend an instant thinking before they squash things into the anti-Russia mould of the moment?

RUSSIA'S INFLUENCE

REPRINTS

Gazeta.ru

November 21, 2013

Fyodor Lukyanov

Russia is becoming almost the key participant in all political processes in the Near East. During these days alone Israeli Premier Binyamin Netanyahu and his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, have been in Moscow, one after the other. Sergey Lavrov is participating in a decisive round of talks on Iran by "the six." At the same time Russian diplomats are trying, after all, to set the Syrian "Geneva-2" in motion, communicating with Damascus and with representatives of the opposition, and are continuing work on the destruction of chemical weapons in Syria. Several days ago a Russian-Egyptian meeting was held in Cairo in the "2 + 2" format (the ministers of defense and foreign affairs), and weapons contracts are expected based on its results. 

The situation is an unexpected one. Just a few months ago it was considered that Moscow was hopelessly losing its positions in the Near East. The last clients inherited from the Soviet past were losing power in their countries, new ones were not taking shape, and Russian policy was occasioning hostility and rejection on the part of the majority of capitals and religious and ethnic groups in the region. 

With what is this turn of events connected?

While paying tribute to the move with chemical weapons, the elegant nature of which was appreciated by all and which will most likely go down in diplomatic history, it has to be admitted that Russia's successes derive from the failure of others.

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

MOSCOW'S MOMENT OF TRUTH ABOUT TEHERAN

COMMENTARY

by Gordon M. Hahn

Time is running out for the Kremlin in its up again down again relationship with the mullahs in Teheran.  Moscow has enjoyed fairly good relations with Iran, especially when it comes to trade.  However, the deteriorating relationship between Iran and the rest of the international community is putting the squeeze on Russia’s sometimes troubled, sometimes smooth, relations with the Iranian regime.

To be sure, some progress has been made during the Obama administration in getting Russia to join with the U.S. and other Western and concerned nations to contain the Iranian menace.  Moscow has agreed more than not, to join in voting at the U.N. in favor of sanctions against Teheranm, than for its refusal to come clean about its illegal nuclear weapons program.  Moscow has also cooperated with the sanctions regime.  Last year President Dmitrii Medvedev issued an order ceasing all weapons sales to Teheran, including blocking delivery of the S-300 air defense system contracted earlier.  It also long delayed loading fuel into Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant that went on line this year.

VIDEO and TRANSCRIPT OF VLADIMIR PUTIN'S INTERVIEW WITH CNN's LARRY KING

Putin's interview with Larry King

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT as provided by the Russian prime minister's website

TIME TO REVISE RUSSIAN RESET POLICY?

ARTICLE CRITIQUE

Response to the Heritage Foundation "Time to Revise Obama's Russian "Reset" Policy" by Ariel Cohen, October 26, 2010

by Gordon Hahn 

The article reviewed below was written for the Heritage Foundation by Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., who is Senior Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy at the Katherine and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Policy at The Heritage Foundation.  Cohen regrets “U.S. concessions on New START, limitations on missile defense, and hands-off policies in Eurasia” because supposedly they “did not prevent Russia from pursuing policies that are often harmful to U.S. interests.”  He proposes a return to a hardline in U.S. policy towards Russia.  Our footnote commentaries assess the veracity, comprehensiveness, and practicality of the author’s policy critique and recommendations.

To access the full analysis, click Download Heritage_Cohen_26_Oct_2010

US-RUSSIA RELATIONS

REPRINTS

U.S. - Russia Relations in Pre-Summit Flux

This report is republished with express permission of STRATFOR http://www.stratfor.com

Just days before the NATO summit in Lisbon in which Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and U.S. President Barack Obama will meet, Medvedev has postponed his annual State of the State address from Nov. 22 to Nov. 30 to account for a possible shift in U.S.-Russian relations, according to STRATFOR sources in Moscow.

Over the past six months, Moscow and Washington had set many of their disagreements aside to achieve more critical goals. Russia wanted aid on its modernization and privatization programs, a cessation of Western support for Georgia and Ukraine, and a freeze on ballistic missile defense (BMD) plans in Russia’s periphery. The United States wanted Russia to sign onto sanctions against Iran and to drop support for Tehran, as well as provide increased logistical support for the war in Afghanistan. On all these issues, there was some sort of common ground found, meaning that Moscow and Washington seemed to have struck a temporary detente.

THE THIRD TURN

ROPV CONTRIBUTORS

by Patrick Armstrong

The hypothesis of this essay is that the conventional Western view of post-Communist Russia has passed through two cycles and is entering a third. While the first two were grounded mostly on what observers wished to see, the third is shaping up to be based more on reality.

Little Brother

As Tom Graham wisely observed some years ago: while no one will take seriously a country with a declining GDP, no one can ignore one whose GDP is rising. When the USSR fell apart in 1991, its extraordinarily centralised economy, whose links were now were blocked by new national borders, choked and died. Living standards sank, inflation exploded, the tax base collapsed, state employees went months without pay, factory employees were paid in kind, the social support system failed and the demographic decline that had begun in the Khrushchev period accelerated. All indicators worsened at once. This was the time when “free fall” was a favourite descriptor. A reminder of this period was a piece that appeared in the Atlantic Monthly in 2001, starkly entitled: “Russia is Finished.” Still available on the Net, it makes curious reading today.

U.S. LAUDS RUSSIA ON BARRING ARMS FOR IRAN

REPRINTS

New York Times, Sep 22, 2010

by David E. Sanger and Andrew. E.Kramer

UNITED NATIONS — The White House praised Russia’s president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, on Wednesday for publicly barring the shipment of an advanced antimissile system to Iran, even as American diplomats here discussed a plan to reopen negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear program. 

The Russian announcement and the effort to revive a diplomatic engagement that fell apart a year ago came as President Obama arrived in New York for the opening of the United Nations General Assembly and laid out what he called an ambitious new approach to American development assistance for the world’s poorest countries. 

“The days when your development was dictated by foreign capitals must come to an end,” Mr. Obama said from the well of the United Nations, the first of two speeches there over two days, drawing applause from nearly 190 nations attending the Millennium Development Goals summit meeting. 

RUSSIAN FEDERATION WEEKLY SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Luzhkov. The number one story in Moscow these days is the future of Mayor Luzhkov. It is highly probable that the present campaign against him is blessed by the Kremlin. It is rumoured that the object is to get him to go quietly. Luzhkov is a powerful man but that’s a lot of pressure. I expect that he will “retire at his own request for personal reasons” as they used to say (vide Ilyumzhinov). There is a style to the way the Team handles these problems: Nazdratenko was ousted as governor in 2001 with the excuse of poor handling of power failures and appointed head of the State Fishing Commission (where he served at Putin’s pleasure); that pleasure ended in 2003. The Team evidently agrees with Lyndon Johnson’s advice on tents. Nazdratenko is still in the tent, but far off in the corner. What’s happening here I think (most commentators didn’t notice Ilyuzhinov’s departure) is that, bit by bit, the Team is getting rid of people who thought they had jobs for life (and, of course, who aren’t as loyal as they might be. But that’s politics and power the world over.)