In a previous post Russia Blog discussed Gazprom's deal with several German banks and the Schroeder government to build a natural gas pipeline under the Baltic to Germany that would bypass Poland and Ukraine. As one of our readers pointed out in a comment, with Ukraine not paying its gas bill, who could blame Russia for wanting to have an alternate route to ship oil and gas to Europe, just as the Clinton Administration wanted to see multiple pipeline routes for Caspian Sea oil in the 1990s?
Today's piece by Washington Post reporter Anne Applebaum, who is married to the Polish Defense Minister Radek Sikorski (formerly with the American Enterprise Institute), will surely annoy Russophiles in the U.S. I suspect they will particularly take offense at her comparison of Russia's lobbying in D.C. with Saudi Arabia's -- especially since Russia is fighting Chechen jihadists who have been bankrolled in part by Saudi money.
Meanwhile, the BBC today is covering former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's angry denials that there was any connection between his touting of the Gazprom deal as Chancellor and his accepting a major position with the Russian state-owned giant upon leaving office.
To be fair, the deal Schroeder announced merely completed years of negotiations and plans dating back to before the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the crumbling USSR desperately needed Western capital to modernize its oil and gas infrastructure but didn't get it, mostly due to tumbling oil prices in the mid-1980s and perhaps, to hear some veteran Cold Warriors tell it, the economic warfare of the Reagan Administration, scuttling several deals with European banks. I remember talking with Matthew Brzezinski, author of Casino Moscow, about a Stratfor report I'd read on several German banks joint attempt to buy 49% of Gazprom back in November 2001.
Applebaum does have a point that most foreign lobbying in D.C. is not of the "registered foreign agent" kind, but involves foreign dignitaries and companies giving money to favored foundations, think tanks and universities. But if this is the case, Russians are very late arrivals in the game, and their money should hardly be compared with the Saudis' or the Gulf emirates, considering that no one has accused Russia of funding terrorists or satellite TV channels that spout anti-American propaganda.
Comments
Charles:
Is it incorrect to believe that the anti-Russian view gets greater play in English language mass media over the pro-Russian one?
I know that such terms as "pro-Russian" and "anti-Russian" are often too simplistic.
However, when comparing the views of Zbigniew Brzezinski with someone like myself - I believe that such categorizations aren't so off of the mark.
Posted by: Michael Averko | December 14, 2005 1:06 PM
Mike,
I agree that the anti-Russian perspective does tend to dominate the media, though I would disagree with conflating anti-Putin comments with anti-Russian, though as with America much of what is nominally, supposedly only European distaste for Bush is in fact anti-Americanism, since Clinton often received a pass for doing some of the same things or simply paying lip service to things like the Kyoto Accords to ecstatic praise, though it meant nothing in actual practice.
What I see lacking and I hope what we are providing here is a forum for understanding why the Russian people in their desperation feel there is no alternative to Putin, and why the opposition remains so feeble and inept, and why Russia feels like it has no choice but to fight to prevent the ethnic and religious cleansing of its people from the southern regions around Chechnya. Simply put, we ask the question: what are Russia's real options? How can we actually make the situation better, as opposed to merely fixating all discussion on one personality, whether his name be Bush or Putin...?
Posted by: Charles Ganske | December 14, 2005 3:43 PM
You're right that anti-Putin doesn't necessarily mean anti-Russian. Keep in mind though that Putin's approval rating has consistently been well over 50%.
I share Edward Lozansky's view that Putin is a better alternative to the Khodorkovsky, Gusinsky, Berezovsky influenced presidency of Boris Yeltsin.
Many of the so called "liberals" in Russia were affiliated with the corruption of the last decade.
I would argue that Putin qualifies as a liberal.
As for Chechnya, it takes two to tango. Who is right in the Israeli-Palestinian and Turkish-Kurdish conflicts?
Russia really tried the peace route in Chechnya.
Are you familiar with Robert Bruce Ware? I consider him to be the most informed American scholar on Chechnya.
Russia itself must find its best route. Though important, the role of other countries is secondary on this matter.
Posted by: Michael Averko | December 14, 2005 8:20 PM
I don't see any anti-Russian bias in Applebaum's piece. Her conclusion is telling:
I think the piece is more "the Russians have arrived at the influence-peddling game like others before them" than anything about some unique evil-ness of the Russians.
Of course, from my perspective, there is some significant differences between private corporations seeking influence for corporate profit motives and state-owned and state-affiliated businesses (with repressive governments, some with hostile intentions toward the U.S.) doing so.
Posted by: James J. Na | December 19, 2005 3:02 PM
James:
State owned and state affiliated need not necessarily be subservient or completely subservient to the involved government.
I'm sure Applebaum doesn't sympathize with Russia for feeling the need to entertain the lobbying course.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 19, 2005 9:14 PM
Are you familiar with Robert Bruce Ware? I consider him to be the most informed American scholar on Chechnya.
Posted by: jon | November 10, 2006 5:49 AM