Ambassador McFaul's or Mike's, as friends and colleagues call him, first steps on arrival in Moscow were marked by a mammoth scandal in the media, internet, Duma and elsewhere. However, it is my strong suspicion that Mike felt victim to some intrigues in the higher places in Washington.
McFaul's record is well-known and pretty illustrious: a Stanford man, about the best Slavist and Russian specialist (some say, Russophile) America has to offer, author of numerous monographs on Russia, etc. etc. Politically he is best known - one might say renowned -- as architect of the "reset" policy in the relations between the USA and Russia, President Obama's helpmeet in the difficult task of straightening out those relations that cried to be straightened out.
All that, however, belongs to his life and times before he donned diplomatic togs. As a diplomat, McFaul has to be part of - and be held responsible for - acts and situations for which he would presumably hate to be held accountable. This article is not an attempt to endorse all McFaul views since I often disagreed with him in the past but if one takes into account the current highly negative atmosphere towards Russia in Washington Mike is probably not the worst option.
Time to End an Obstacle to U.S. Access to the World's 9th-Largest Economy
Edward Lozansky
President Obama, Use Your Legal Authority to Remove Russia From Jackson-Vanik!
In December 2011, the Russian Federation was invited to join the World Trade Organization (WTO). President Barack Obama phoned his Russian counterpart, President Dmitry Medvedev, to congratulate him. The White House released a statement hailing the move:
"Russia's membership in the WTO will lower tariffs, improve access to Russia's services markets, hold the Russian government accountable to a system of rules governing trade behavior, and provide the means to enforce those rules. Russia's membership in the WTO will generate more export opportunities for American manufacturers and farmers, which in turn will support well-paying jobs in the U.S. President Obama told President Medvedev that the administration is committed to working with Congress to end the application of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to Russia in order to ensure that American firms and American exporters will enjoy the same benefits of Russian WTO membership as their international competitors."
The reference to the Jackson-Vanik amendment - a U.S. law - means that as long as Washington continues to apply that discriminatory statutory provision against Russia, Moscow can discriminate against importation of American goods and services. In effect, U.S. exports to Russia would suffer as a unique exception to the Russians' WTO obligations.
Protesters' poster compares Vladimir Putin to Muammar Gaddafi and mocks him with an old Soviet joke "You're on a faithful path, comrades!"
The Putin regime has little to fear from the latest public protests which, despite drawing large crowds, are apolitical. True politics will only become possible in Russia when both the opposition and the regime focus on the tedious work of practical politics, says Nicolai N. Petro in his highly personal view of recent events.
Kudos are due to both the Russian police and opposition leaders for having managed the second successful mass protest in Moscow without incident and in an appropriately festive spirit. After the Christmas eve demonstration in Sakharov square, the crowd was told that the next protest meeting would be held some time in February since, obviously, nobody wants to disrupt the extended Russian winter holidays which last well into January. By February, presumably, holiday cheer will have subsided and it will be time for another manifestation of civic outrage. As Putin quipped during his televised Q&A with the nation, if these protests are a product of 'the Putin regime,' he is only too happy to take credit for them.
There are several issues about democracy under discussion in Russia. One is corruption and the stories of major public officials, including V. Putin, enjoying lavish palaces--and owning them?--on a government salary. Powerful elected officials after a few years in any country often come to chafe under the limits to personal wealth that coexist with their much less limited public power. That resentment is the seedbed of public pilf in any country, and that seedbed is apparently well-watered in Russia now. The official typically thinks, "Why is it that I can make others rich, but get nothing for myself?" The public thinks, "If you don't like your job, quit!"
But Putin isn't quitting.
In America, presidents are limited to two four year terms, after which they get a reasonably large annual pension and office staff, plus a presidential library named after them. They also can cash in, or not, in the private sector, based on their friendships and name. That seems to suffice. Almost no US presidents are accused of personal enrichment while in office.)
A second issue is whether freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are truly honored in Russia today, or are they offered only as window dressing? In the past, protests were small and could be ridiculed and criticized officially for not following proper procedures for permits, etc. The size of the recent protests make such ridicule ridiculous itself, and thanks, perhaps to calmer voices in the Kremlin, the approach of mockery has been muted.
Ronald Reagan made brilliant use of a weapon that did not exist -- his Strategic Defense Initiative -- to hasten the end of a war that was never fought: the cold one.
Thus, at its inception, missile defense had a fruitful purpose-to bring to a close the Cold War, i.e., the division of Europe into mutually antagonistic blocs. Reagan was so concerned that his plans for missile defense not destabilize the nuclear balance and thus deepen and prolong pan-European discord that he offered to share the technology with Moscow that was still the capital of the Soviet Union.
The Obama Administration, having launched its wise and admirable reset by canceling President Bush's plans to deploy a missile system on Russia's borders, has since revived that very bad idea, and thereby torpedoed one of its few solid foreign policy achievements. It plans to park elements of a missile defense system in Poland and Romania, prompting Russia's once and presumably future president Vladimir Putin to ask publicly: "So where is this reset?"
Sadly, Obama has shown himself unable to withstand the pressures of powerful lobbies and factions within his own party for empire-that is to say for the maintenance and expansion of our globe-girdling hive of compliant states.
President Medvedev's stern warning to the United States and NATO on the eve of parliamentary elections seems to be directed at domestic audiences, to rally nationalist votes. However, if his intension was to influence U.S. or NATO policies on missile defense, it most likely misfired. Obama is in no position to yield to the Kremlin's demands, and the only thing that Medvedev has achieved with this outburst is to supply ammunition for the White House critics who keep crying foul of the 'reset' policy. Additionally, Medvedev's threat to quit START sounds pretty irrational since this treaty was praised by Moscow itself as one of its most successful diplomatic efforts in recent years.
This is not to say that U.S. missile defense policy is justified. Russia has many valid reasons to complain, but if it wants its voice to be heard, it should use a different approach. Issuing threats and saber rattling did not work even in the Soviet era, and it definitely will not work now. One should add that Moscow's proposal for 'sectoral' defense responsibilities is not very serious, either. Justifiably, NATO says that it cannot delegate its members' defense to a third party.
However, the Kremlin's strong card is its offer to the West to develop and deploy a joint missile defense system. This offer has fundamental meaning since it proves that Russia is absolutely serious about its wish to be part of the global security infrastructure.
RT (Russia Today TV News Network) has covered the Occupy Wall Street movement so extensively and boldly that it begs the question: What does the Kremlin have to do with the OWS movement? From what I have observed in both Russia and the USA, the answer is: Very little or nothing at all, to my regret, which I'll explain later. More than a month-- from September 17 when the OWS started in New York to October 21 when I returned from Moscow to Washington--I watched OWS the way Russians see it, through government-controlled TV channels.
I was struck by how little attention Russian media paid to this massive explosion of discontent that was clearly embarrassing to US government and media pundits who would much rather talk about "lack of democracy" in Russia than American about 1% "plutocrats." After checking online reports from Truthout, I realized that in OWS did not receive a coverage it deserved. So I had remained unaware of the movement's huge scale until I came back to my Alexandria home--and to a new TV set supplied with dozen channels, including RT. Now I'm glued to RT every morning. And what do I see?
Herman Cain explained how he'll answer tricky foreign policy questions: "When they ask me who's the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan, I'm gonna say, 'You know, I don't know, do you know?' And then I'm gonna say, 'How's that gonna create more jobs?' I wanna focus on the top priorities of this country. That's what leaders do."
Although it is still a year to the US presidential election, the fight for the White House is in full swing. In this fight, everything goes, and the Republicans are determined to take away every chance of Obama winning. As he has done rather better in international affairs than in the economy, and the Reset in relations with Russia is among the brightest feathers in his cap, it clearly has to be compromised at all costs, even if the US own interests may suffer in consequence.
One would have thought that John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, has little time to waste. Congress is fiercely debating the impending dramatic budget cuts, attempts to reduce unemployment, and lessen the national debt that is nearing the astronomical $15 trillion, i.e. over 100 percent of GDP. The Occupy Wall Street protest movement is on the rise, and several cities have already seen serious clashes with the police.
Russian People Try to Take Prosecution into Their Hands in the Absence of Law (and God)
Yuri Mamchur
Caution: graphic video, a YouTube sign-in is required
While Vladimir Putin in stylish ties talks about liberalization and the need of another 12 years to fix things in Russia (after a 13 year trial?), Russians stopped believing in the rule of law, and the Russian countryside is building up its emotions for another revolution. In the Russian city of Bryansk, Irina Dobrzhanskaya (a 20-year-old inexperienced driver) was speeding about 10 miles above the speed limit on a major street/highway. (Usually, Russians double the allowed speed limit). A mother with a 3-year-old daughter was crossing the road on a crosswalk. Now, a few facts are important for a proper interpretation of the story before the punch line: the city officials didn't bother to put white crosswalk paint on the pavement (either the paint was stolen or the painters were drunk when the job was due); a police unit was present on the scene, but was occupied with collecting cash bribes about 30 yards away from the crosswalk; Irina was driving in the left lane, did not see the mother and the child, did not get the queue from a stopped bus (that blocked the view) that there may be a reason for why it had stopped...
Irina hit the mother and the child. The 3-year-old girl died. The bus drove away. Bystanders did not come to help. Police did not immediately leave its vehicle. Only one person walked slowly to the scene. Three-year-old Sonya was the eighth deadly victim of the crosswalk in three years. And everything was caught on tape!
Now, OMON (special units of Russian police) are guarding Irina's house. After immediately pleading guilty and offering all her savings and more to help the girl's family, Irina has already tried to commit a suicide and is now residing in a mental institution. Then, why does police guard her condo, located in an old five-story Soviet building? Because the town people promise to burn Irina's mother alive and kill Irina once she is out of the hospital.
Town people are remembering the 3-year-old Sonya with tears and pointing at the driver and the Kremlin with fists.
How Vladimir Putin Lost a Chance to Become George Washington
Yuri Mamchur
In the 1700-s British King George III called George Washington "The greatest man in the world." American history is taught well in Russian public schools, but probably wasn't delivered as well during the Soviet times when Vladimir Putin was a boy. Had Putin looked into the history books, he would've found out that he had given up the opportunity to become the Greatest Man in Russia's history. In fact, he lined himself up to become one of the less impressive men in history, one whose personal hobbies and views, combined with age and historically long terms at the steering wheel (surpassing even Stalin) may lead to some results other than a free market economy...
What is the secret sauce for being the "Greatest Man in the World?" It is simple: be humble. Or as Bob Lefsets, an LA-based music producer says about the record industry and technology at large, "It's all about the timing." Putin failed at both. Unfortunately, his failures are much more than just his personal business. What really hurts is the fact that Putin built a strong, wealthy country and the momentum of that could have made Russia a role model to all, including the United States - responsible spending, non-involvement in foreign affairs, strong financial system, and... That's where the list ends. When talking to a Moscow friend, I mentioned Putin's accomplishments, to which he responded, "What do all of them mean if he failed at the most important thing -- grooming the leadership among the future generations."
In 1775, when George Washington accepted command of the Continental Army, he promised Congress he would resign his commission when the war was over. Once the British withdrew, he was true to his word. Just before then, Washington had been approached by the officers who pledged their support if he decided to seize civilian power. In response, General Washington scolded the conspiring officer.
A census worker surveys Medvedevs at the presidential residence. Not every Russian was surveyed like President Dmitry Medvedev...
Businesses need sound demographic data on which to base investment and marketing decisions, especially in foreign countries. Russia, despite its oil wealth, is a country that would like to attract more foreign investors. But the latest Census there is probably unreliable. At the very base of collection it was substantially invented.
The 2010 Russia Census was unfunded until late in the process. The operation was about to be postponed when Prime Minister Vladimir Putin intervened and found 10.5 billion rubles to pay for it. Now, as official results trickle out a year later, one would think that a big success was achieved. The national newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta reports: "Russia's population has declined by 1.6 percent since 2002 - from 145.2 million to 142.9 million people. There are only two regions where the population increased. In the Perm region the population grew by 11,800 people, and in Usolksky - by 800."
Such precision in Usolksky or anywhere in Russia is suspect, however. The U.S. Census Bureau's Center for International Research believes that specific official Russian numbers may be off by as much as 87 percent from site to site. Anecdotally, I've had the chance to witness a census count in both the U.S. and Russia. The two counts couldn't be much different.
Time to Stop Sponsoring Georgia's Ski Resorts with U.S. Taxpayers' Money. Evidence Shows Russia Blog Right on Georgia War in 2008.
Yuri Mamchur
Statue of Joseph Stalin stood outside the Town Hall in Stalin's birthplace town of Gori, Georgia. After receiving significant subsidies from the U.S., Georgian government removed the monument as part of the country's "de-Sovietization" process.
Today three years ago, the short yet highly controversial war between Russia and Georgia took place. The events are especially memorable to the editors of the Russia Blog, who were typing away to provide an accurate picture of what was happening on the ground. (Click here to see our coverage of the events). Three years ago, Russia Blog's point of view was in a minority opposition to the American mainstream media and the U.S. government's official stance. Back then, Senator McCain called on bombing the Russian troops on approach to Georgia (in his own words "bomb bomb bomb Russia"), The Washington Post and the White House openly supported the untrue facts that the Russians were the first ones to attack, and among all of English-speaking media, Russia Blog was the only outlet saying the opposite: Georgia attacked, killed innocent people, Russia responded, and the U.S. wasted its money. The truth brought millions of visitors to our site, temporarily crushing our servers and flooding us with both praise and criticism.
Months after the events, The Washington Post switched sides and finally told the truth (which was very similar to our initial writings), though--as I recall--only on the the third page. Only outcries and criticisms of Russia deserve the first page, everything else goes elsewhere. (Though the same is true for anything - in Western media bad news is great news, and good news is no news). During the WikiLeaks scandal it became apparent that neither American intelligence nor the State Department had any idea what they were talking about. They lost access to any information on the ground and control of Georgia's semi-insane President Saakashvili (who literally ate his tie while on Georgia national TV). Furthermore, WikiLeaks-released documents stated that even after the officials in Washington found out the truth, they still stuck to the "party line." "Oooppssies" moment of missing the start of the war and being blind throughout the whole process was too hard to face.
Russia and the Arab Spring: the Kremlin's Short-Term Gains Are Russia's Long-Term Losses
Yuri Mamchur
When the recent anti-government demonstrations began in the Arab world, the planet's only superpower--the United States of America--became actively involved. The American government cheered, making public statements supporting Arab nations' rights to freedom. But given how much closer Russia is to the Arab world than the United States--geographically speaking, at least--it's worth asking where Russia has been during the Middle East's great upheaval.
More Russians than Americans travel to Egypt. According to RusTourism News, in March 2009 alone 300,000 Russian tourists traveled to Egypt. In March 2010, that number grew by 90.4 percent. Oil prices affect Russia more than they do America--after all, not only private businesses, but Russia's federal budget is strictly tied to the price per barrel of oil. Simply put, stability in the Arab world would seem to matter at least as much--if not more--to Russia as it does to the US. But action, or in this case, inaction, may speak louder than words.
The dearth of official Russian involvement in the "Arab spring" demonstrates the country's fading influence in the world, at least the type of influence needed to carry out precise international intelligence operations and foresee long-term geopolitical effects. While some have said that the US intelligence community may have helped facilitate the Arab spring (or at least desired it), no one is even giving Russian intelligence the honor of such speculation and rumor. Instead, Russia's most notable intelligence activity of recent international memory was the embarrassment over last year's spy scandal, when Russian intelligence officers were kicked out of the US after being caught spying for Russia. Embarrassingly for Russia, the only "intelligence" those intelligence officers ever obtained were nothing more than street rumors and data from daily print media, all of which could have been easily found online, without ever leaving Moscow.
The overheated political debate on reducing the United States' astronomical debt has transfixed the world. From an international perspective, the United States - due to the size of its economy and its exclusive ownership of the green printing press - can help the entire global economy right now or plunge it off the cliff.
Two factors are overlooked in the political debate on reducing the national debt, which is fast approaching the mind-boggling figure of $15 trillion, or close to 100 percent of the country's GDP.
First, you do not have to be an elite economist to figure out that even if the Republicans in Congress force President Barack Obama to accept a $4 trillion "deficit reduction" over the next decade, it does not mean that the current national debt will diminish by $4 trillion. It only means that the growth in the national debt will be $4 trillion less than otherwise, but 10 years from now the debt will still be much higher than the current $15 trillion. However, all these calculations may become totally meaningless as reckless policies lead to a global economic and financial collapse.
Discussions on the effectiveness of the Putin-Medvedev tandem started right after the 2008 presidential election and will definitely continue at least until the next one in 2012. Whether such a tandem is good or bad for the country appears to me to be a moot point. Frolov believes it is good for Russia's domestic development while counterproductive with regard to its foreign policy. In my humble opinion, though, even in foreign policy the picture is not necessarily all black: there are some clear white areas as well.
First, when Medvedev became president in 2008 he had practically no experience in international affairs. U.S. - Russian relations were at the lowest ebb since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the new edition of the Cold War was almost there. Worse still, just a few months after the new president was settled in the Kremlin the war with Georgia broke out. At a certain point the situation was pretty close to World War III breaking out. Had Vice President Dick Cheney's proposal to bomb Russian troops in the Roki tunnel linking South Ossetia to North Ossetia succeeded, the consequences would have been horrific indeed.
Frankly, I like Medvedev and wish him every success in the upcoming election. But! Please let us be honest, dear ladies and gentlemen. Do we really believe that a young and inexperienced professor of law was ready to calmly handle this quagmire without strong backing from his mentor Putin?
Russia: the Land of Falling Planes, Sinking Ships, and Crumbling Infrastructure
Yuri Mamchur
The title of this article is not an over-exaggeration. The YouTube clip--filmed by bystanders yesterday--shows plane AN-24 literally falling out of the sky. Out of 36 people on board, seven people died, others suffered various injuries. The top comment left for the video reads (translated from Russian): "The remains of the Soviet Union are crumbling away, and nothing new is being built. Modernization, innovation, Go Russia! "
When comparing their multi-national country to the United States, Russians tend to pride themselves in a lesser amount of freak accidents and unnecessary deaths, such as shootings in colleges, hostage takings in shopping malls, and armed robberies. However, the sentiment is very different these days. Just in the past month, the world has witnessed two major accidents in Russia - a plane landing half a mile short of the landing strip and killing nearly everyone on board, and a ship sinking--not in the open ocean--but in a river, killing more than half of its passengers. The incidents, overlooked by the Western media, in the last two weeks include more helicopters and planes falling out of the skies, and the debates around Russia's new ballistic missile Bulava, that flies correctly only half of the times--a disturbing success rate if armed with a nuclear warhead. What is happening to Russia?
Kremlin Needs Opposition, Opposition Needs a Vision
Yuri Mamchur
Like hamsters, Russian politicians are spinning the wheels without embarking on a real journey to lead the nation.
Registration failure of PARNAS, Prokhorov's entry to Russia's political scene, David vs. Goliath victories of blogger Alexey Navalny (who's still alive), nationalistic uprisings in downtown Moscow, and country's "manual control" of Medvedev and Putin - all these are the pieces of one puzzle. Russia does not have a formulated point of view, everybody knows it, and everyone--including Kremlin--needs it. Absence of checks-and-balances is driving Kremlin crazy, as all failures are blamed directly on Medvedev and Putin, and in the leadership vacuum their authority is disrespected by the entire nation. The only reason they have the power is lack of not a better, but any alternative. Western media says that the lack of an alternative is Putin's calculated plan. We think differently. Now for a decade, Russian opposition failed to formulate a single goal or a clearly understandable objective, aside from just opposing the Kremlin. The means became the goals, and the dog keeps on chasing its tail. The absence of a vision is not attractive.
In Russia's major cities, T1-speed internet (faster than $100-a-month Comcast's service) costs $12 to $25 a month. It is unrestricted (unlike in China), unprosecuted (unlike in Egypt), and unlimited (unlike in Comcast's America). Egyptians proved that the Internet can be used to take down decades-long dictators. Blogger Alexey Navalny proved that the Internet can be used to expose very powerful people. (So far, Navalny hasn't been killed or intimidated - he freely roams across the country delivering speeches and participating in public forums). When Russian soccer-fans-turn-nationalists-turn fascists went into the streets, observers could see wide-angle photos of thousands of people demanding for Putin to step down. Police tried but failed to disperse the crowd. When Prokhorov announced his bid for Putin's post, two days later Medvedev invited him for a meeting. Certain anti-Russian observers may say that Prokhorov is part of Kremlin's hegemony conspiracy, but that would be equal to saying that George Bush orchestrated 9-11 to finish his father's job in Iraq; all points of view deserve to exist ("Putin is a fascist" and "9-11 was an inside job"), but we'll stick with the reasonable scenarios.
VIP Blue Light Driving in Russia - Reason for a Revolution or Further Obedience?
Yuri Mamchur
Two weeks ago, a member of parliament from Putin's party United Russia got drunk (as in smashed) and took his Porche Cayanne for a ride, killing a 23-year-old student, an only provider for his disabled parents...
On June 14, 2011, Foreign Policy magazine, in its article "Road Rage in Russia," asked: "Moscow's elite has decided it doesn't need to follow the traffic laws. Will there be a pedestrian revolution?" RussiaBloghas written about the issue for years (here are samples from 2005, 2006, 2007, and more), exposing crimes and murders committed by Russia's ruling elite on the roads; to save the suspense - the answer to the Foreign Policy's question is: "No, there will be no revolution." The reasons behind the answer are complex and rooted into a thousand-year history of the nation, its mentality, geography, and ruling style of the past 500 years (that surprisingly hasn't changed from Ivan the Terrible to Bolsheviks to Yeltsin to Putin).
As mentioned in the RussiaBlog's article "Enough Is Enough. President Medvedev - Stop the Killing of Russia's Innocent Drivers!" - Ivan the Terrible was the first person to make sure that his carriage wheels splashed bystanders with mud. It made him laugh back in mid-1500-s. Tsars, Soviet secretaries, and first presidents of modern Russia (Yeltsin, Putin, Medvedev) have done the same. Here's what many Westerners don't know and probably will have hard times understanding: the majority of common people--on the outside oppressed by the elite's driving techniques--in fact are proud of this old Russian tradition.
"Manual control" has become an established term in Russian media and among common people when referring to the ruling style of Putin and Medvedev. Wait, it's not what you are thinking, even though - yes it sounds like it. Medvedev and Putin rule "hands on" not because of their hunger for power, but because otherwise nothing gets done. In some ways, the managerial structure can be compared to one of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, who--in his 40-year rule--ensured that governmental institutions do not exist and do not function without the key man. However, it is still different in Russia - neither Putin nor Medvedev intended for it to be so. CIA's World Factbook wrongly describes Russia as a "centralized semi-authoritarian state." In fact, Putin wished well, that's why he lost both - the centralization and the authority, along with the population's respect. While the non-existent Russian opposition and the West think that Putin is tough, the reality is - he is not. The moment the ruling duo turns away, stuff gets stolen, abandoned, unfinished.
A year ago, President Medvedev shared one interesting number - government bureaucrats annually steal $35 billion from government budgets during routine purchases; Medvedev is yet to give an update on how he succeeded in fighting the trend. Last year, during the severe wild fires, Putin had to personally fly over the woods, and even drop a bucket of water from a plane. Not for show, but because the Ministry of Emergency Situations failed in fighting the fires. After the fires died out, all the destroyed homes were rebuilt, right in time for the winter season. One caveat that Westerners are unfamiliar with - Putin watched live video feed from the construction sites on his office screens; so workers would work and not steal the construction supplies. Apparently, there was nobody aside from the country's prime minister to ensure the proper construction process in a "centralized semi-authoritarian state."
As he prepares to retire as U.S. secretary of defense, Robert Gates has suggested that the U.S. can no longer be NATO's financial backer.
Retiring U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made what looked like a farewell speech last week. In it, he castigated the military leaders of NATO and its European member states. The former, for their inability to conduct effective military operations in Afghanistan and Libya; the latter, for their reluctance to invest substantial human and financial resources in NATO, expecting the United States to go on bearing most of the burden. The U.S. increasingly resents this kind of attitude on the part of its allies, particularly now that the country is facing enormous economic and financial problems.
Gates is leaving office and so does not feel the need to mince words. In his recent comments, he has plainly warned Europe that it had better revise its policy of obtaining security at other people's expense - otherwise future U.S. political leaders, those for whom the Cold War was not the same kind of formative experience that it was for Gates's generation, may decide that U.S. investment in NATO brings too scant a return and is not really worth it.
Putin's Supremacy: Evil Plot or Leadership Vacuum?
Yuri Mamchur
President Medvedev followed Putin's habit of acting tough, and made spontaneous visits to government-managed apartment buildings across the country. (A common condo building in Russia is managed by a municipality, not private owners, and certainly not the federal government). While the entrances and common spaces are in OK condition in major neighborhoods of major cities, they are in a disgusting condition across the country. However, people quickly caught on to the absurdity of Medvedev's "act of toughness." Thousands of comments left on Russian websites asked if President Medvedev would mind to plunge readers' toilets and check air in their tires. Given the attitude, it is easy to predict Medvedev's failure in the upcoming elections.
Liberals--widely hated in Russia and adored in the West--have failed to gain 1% of the population's vote, now for a decade. However, there is a group of people that neither Putin nor Westerners like. Those are fascist nationalists. They hosted multi-thousand-people protests in downtown Moscow this winter (much grander than the ones hosted by 100 crazy liberals monthly), calling for Putin's resignation. Police failed to disperse them. Putin failed to reason with them. And, here is the punch line: according to the recent poll conducted by the independent Levada Center - 58% of Russians support the statement "Russia for Russians." 68% of the Russians are in favor of limiting the immigration into the country. Once a new leader emerges (and it certainly won't be chess master Kasparov) - Putin will look like an Easter bunny, and Western newspapers will have to quickly change their op-eds from "Putin = bad" to "we missed our chance to build ties with Russia."
Jackson-Vanik remains on the books, but a new lawsuit argues that it does not apply to Russia at all.
Barack Obama in Washington D.C. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)
U.S. President Barack Obama can feel pretty good these days: Osama bin Laden is dead; growing public opposition to GOP fiscal policies strengthens the president's hand in dealing with congressional Republicans; the worst expectations for the natural disasters caused by the Mississippi River flooding have so far not materialized. His re-election prospects look shinier with every passing day.
But let's not assume that the president sleeps on a bed of roses. Obama has problems of his own, and one of them is that he's facing a lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed on Apr. 18 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by two Americans: Edward Lozansky, a former Soviet dissident and currently president of American University in Moscow, and Anthony Salvia, a renowned expert on U.S.-Russia relations and formerly head of the Moscow bureau of Radio Liberty. Lozansky and Salvia are asking the court to force President Obama to use his executive power to graduate Russia from a provision of Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, commonly known as the Jackson-Vanik amendment.
Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak (right) and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Russell (left) at the World Russia Forum 2011 in Washington D.C. on March 29, 2011 (photo by Yuri Mamchur)
It is never boring at the World Russia Forum (WRF), a two-day conference of politicians, business people, and scholars from Russia and the U.S. who have been meeting annually since 1981 with the intent of improving U.S.-Russia relations. WRF was created by Edward Lozansky, a former Soviet nuclear physicist and dissident who emigrated to the U.S. during the Cold War and is now a U. S. citizen. Since the collapse of the U.S.S.R., he has been running the American University in Moscow (AUM) which co-sponsors the Forum. Discovery Institute of Seattle and the Eurasia Center of Washington joined Lozansky's effort in people's diplomacy.
Having attended several such forums, I can say that this one, the 30th was as remarkable as any. As usual, the first day's proceedings, on March 29, took place in Hart Senate Office Building and ended with a reception at the Russian Embassy dedicated to the 50th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's first manned flight. On the second day, the Forum moved to George Washington University Business School and the Russian Cultural Center.
The Forum featured a number of high-caliber speakers: Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Russell, U.S. Congressmen Tom Price and Dana Rohrabacher, as well as Sergei Markov, Deputy of the Russian Duma. Business was represented by such people as Edward Verona, President, U.S.-Russia Business Council, and Dmitry Akhanov, President, Rusnano. Among prominent scholars were Andrew Kuchins, Director of the Russia and Eurasia Programs, CSIS, Robert Legvold, Columbia University, and Sergey Rogov, Director, Institute of the USA and Canada.
Konstantin Kosachev, Chairman of the Russian State Duma Committee on Foreign Affairs (left), and Edward Lozansky watch Richard Perle address the World Russia Forum on March 29, 2011 in U.S. Senate Hart Building in Washington D.C. (Photo by W George Krasnow)
It is like a broken record. Each time a U.S. dignitary comes to Moscow, he promises Russian officials that the Jackson-Vanik amendment will be repealed soon. This game has been played for 20 years or more, while the amendment itself is 36 years old, having been passed unanimously by the U.S. Congress in 1974 and signed into law by President Gerald Ford on Jan. 3, 1975.
Few leaders miss the opportunity to repeat the standard phrases that the Jackson-Vanik amendment is a relic of the Cold War that is completely irrelevant in the post-Soviet era and contradicts reason and common sense.
Then Richard Perle entered the arena. Perle, who served as deputy defense secretary in the administration of U.S. President Ronald Reagan and before that as the top adviser to Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson -- the Jackson of Jackson-Vanik -- spoke at the World Russia Forum in Washington two weeks ago and made two interesting points.
Libyans explore the remains of an American fighter jet after it crashed near Benghazi due to mechanical issues
The UN resolution 1973 is purportedly imposed to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, the killing of "thousands of civilians" - as claimed by the insurgent side. Is there any independent confirmation of such a humanitarian catastrophe, of the death of masses of innocent civilians? Or do those casualties occur in the course of armed struggle between government forces and insurgents? No one can say for sure, because the evidence, what there is of it, comes from the warring sides and should by rights be dismissed as acts of information warfare.
As far as this anti-government side is concerned, a lack of any reliable information about it is particularly conspicuous. Just who are these people? Who are their leaders? Western media now calls them "freedom fighters" but are they? What are their plans - apart from getting rid of Qaddafi? If they want "freedom and democracy" - what are their democratic credentials, excepting verbiage? Freedom for what, Sharia Law? Col. Qaddafi, for one, calls them al-Qaeda stooges. He may be saying this just to scare his Western opponents - but supposing there is a grain of truth in this?
Are There Lessons to Be Learned for Russia From the Events in Tunisia?
Edward Lozansky
Recent turmoil in Tunisia and other Arab countries calls for at least two fairly self-evident conclusions, one of a global nature, the other specifically concerning Russia. Under several recent administrations and particularly under Gorge W. Bush, America assumed the mission of spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world in the belief that it is the best cure for all or almost all of the world's problems.
The irony of the current moment in history apparently is that democratic elections in the wake of political upheavals in the Middle East might bring to power Hamas/Hezbollah-style Islamist radicals. The U.S.-led democratization of Afghanistan has resulted in a 40-times increase in drug production. Human endeavor never yields the results one desires at the outset of an undertaking, but rarely with the same disastrous consequences as the spreading of freedom and democracy to all nations regardless of their history, religion, culture, the people's mentality, and ingrained ways of life.
Moscow's Mayor Luzhkov and Chicago's Mayor Daley: Similar Accomplishment, Different Departures
Yuri Mamchur
On December 29, 2010, the traffic jams just in the city of Moscow were 3,200 km long (2,000 miles) - the traffic jams in the city streets spread over the distance equal to one between Moscow and Barcelona!
As I was driving on the snowed over Leninsky Prospekt (large avenue) in downtown Moscow a couple of weeks ago, I realized: I had never seen that much snow on Moscow roads. Luzhkov had left the office three months ago, the snow just started falling, and the only snow-cleaning vehicle that can be seen is a lonely parked tractor with a small snow plow. For the matter of a reference, Leninsky Prospect has 10 lanes at its widest parts, and used to be cleaned by 10 fast-moving vehicles in each lane immediately as the snowflakes had appeared in the sky. Three months without an old, allegedly corrupt, and heavy-handed leader, and changes are already visible. Bad changes. I predict that the same awaits Chicago, once Mayor Daley leaves his office this spring. The only difference in the two mayors' departures is: Mayor Daley will leave to an ovation of citizens and politicians; Mayor Luzhkov was kicked out by a president (nearly half Luzhkov's age) after a state-wide media smear campaign.
Under Luzhkov, Moscow turned from a grey communist city of the past into the most expensive and trendy city in the world. Moscow's economy improved, large construction projects in the city, including the building of a new financial district, took place, and Moscow's skyline transformed into a crossover of Paris and Dubai. Having visited most of the European and American cities over the past two years I am making a statement: Moscow became the world's cleanest Western capital. At the same time, Luzhkov was accused of corruption, bulldozing historic buildings, and poor handling of traffic, as well as the city's smog crisis during the 2010 Russian wildfires. On September 28, 2010, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev removed Luzhkov from his position for the "loss of trust."
A Tribute to American Patriot: In Memory of Joe Sobran (1946-2010) Part Two
W George Krasnow
[Note: This is Part 2 of Krasnow's tribute to Joe Sobran. In Part 1, he described his personal acquaintance with Joe. Here he pays tribute in the context of ongoing ideological struggle for the hearts and minds of American people.]
Attitude toward Jews
"Are you anti-Jewish?" I asked him point blank. "Goodness no," Joe replied. "I am aware that Jews played a prominent role in Russian revolution. I know how prominent they were in the antiwar and civil rights movement here. Many of them were pro-socialist and pro-Soviet. They never raised the issue of human rights in Russia, Eastern Europe, or China. At that time, they were anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American. They were not particularly pro-Israel. But I also know Jews who are as American as can be. They are not just my personal friends. They are allies in a struggle against militant Zionists who equate U.S. national interests with those of Israel. I am intellectually indebted to my Jewish friends, and I'd never turn against a Jew simply because he is a Jew."
Joe made it clear that his case transcended his person. What he endured was indicative of a dangerous social malady -- stifling all debate in favor of political shibboleths. Joe asked me if I remembered seeing how the Prime Minister of Israel was received by the joint session of Congress. I did. After the speech was over, the camera showed everybody standing up and applauding, not knowing when to stop and afraid to be the first to sit down. "Didn't that remind you of the country from which you defected?" Joe asked.
Opposed to START III: Some Senate Republicans plus all Russian Communists
Edward Lozansky
The end of the 'lame duck' Congress is quickly approaching but its agenda is overwhelming. Numerous skeptics doubt if all the items on this agenda will have a chance to come to the vote.
One such item is ratification of the START treaty. Obama makes no secret of the fact that this is going to be his top priority. The list of those who want him to succeed reads like Who's in Who in America, in Europe, and for that matter across the world. Republicans and Democrats, Pentagon and NATO top brass, conservatives, liberals and even some neocons, left and right, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and The Financial Times, all of them have made a strong case for ratification, insisting that this treaty is in the best interest of the United States. Even the leadership of countries that are hardly on the list of Russia lovers - like Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania - also want this treaty to be ratified. So what's the problem? Shouldn't the whole process be a piece of cake?
A Tribute to American Patriot: In Memory of Joe Sobran (1946-2010) Part One
W George Krasnow
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- When I returned to America on October 15 from Russia, I learned the sad news that Joe Sobran, journalist, syndicated columnist, and writer, had passed away on September 30.
Calling Sobran an "Antiwar Prophet," Jon Utley, a Russia & America Good Will Associate (RAGA) subscriber and antiwar activist, wrote in his eulogy in The American Conservative magazine, "If Joe Sobran's warnings had been heeded, America would not be on the path to bankruptcy and unending, unwinnable wars."
I, too, regard Joe as an American patriot, man of peace, friend of Russia, honorary RAGA associate, and personal friend.
I came to the United States in 1966 from Sweden, a country that was rapidly turning anti-American. Even with my shaky English, I quickly found out that William F. Buckley Jr.'s National Review (NR), for which Joe Sobran soon became the principal writer, was the only intellectual magazine that was unabashedly pro-American. It was anti-communist, not in the sense of belligerency but by virtue of its defense of the fundamental American values of individual liberty, free enterprise, limited government, and academic freedom -- values that were under communist assault around the world.
The most impressive victory of the Republican Party in the last elections sent shivers not only through the White House and Democratic Party headquarters but through Moscow's political establishment as well. Here, the fear is that the new Congress could try to undermine Obama's reset policy with Russia.
But although Obama undoubtedly comes out of this election severely weakened domestically, he is still pretty much in charge of U.S. foreign policy. Can he make some headway in this area to help the country and himself in view of the upcoming presidential campaign?
It will of course not be an easy task, given that America, which only 20 years ago was the world's only and undisputed superpower, has suddenly found itself in a very precarious geopolitical, economic and financial situation. Now, the story of America's difficulties can be recycled endlessly and fingers pointed at those who were to blame for the current sad state of affairs. However, discussing the things that need to be done seems a much more meaningful pursuit.
Yanukovich's decision to take Ukraine back to the presidential-parliamentary political system is not necessarily a setback for democracy. There are many countries in the world - one (France) that comes to mind immediately - where a strong presidency does not come into conflict with democratic values.
It is true that in 2010 Yanukovich faces roughly the same situation as Putin did in 1999, only in Yanukovich's case the threat of disintegration is much worse.
At the turn of the century some allegedly serious thinkers were playing games with the global chessboard, drawing up plans for Russia's disintegration and division. There was talk of the Ural Republic, the Far Eastern Republic, etc. And real centrifugal tendencies did then exist in Russia, with real political and economic power in the hands of regional feudal lords.
If the pledge by the United States to help Russia's WTO bid is indeed a trade-off for Medvedev's ban on the sale of the S-300 air defense missile systems to Iran, and not the product of speculation by foreign affairs pundits, the value of such a deal for Russia appears highly questionable.
First of all, there is still a debate going on in Russia as to whether the WTO will do this country more harm than good.
Secondly, America may not deliver on its promise even if at the moment it truly intends to keep it. Judging from past experience, several other stumbling blocks may emerge, especially after the November elections, when the number of Obama's supporters in Congress will be reduced substantially.
Then there is always the possibility that the erratic Georgian president will try to veto Russia's entry to the WTO, and he has plenty of "we are all Georgians" types in Washington who will gladly encourage him to do that. These folks will always find another excuse, however spurious, to humiliate Russia. For a partial list of these excuses go to the recent Washington Post article by former Assistant Secretary of State David Kramer, as obvious a regurgitation of Cold War cliches and recipes as one might find these days in the most moss-brained circles.
What's to Be Expected from Serdyukov's Visit to Washington?
Edward Lozansky
Russia's Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov (center) inspecting a military base
The visit of RF Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov to the United States offers an excellent opportunity for filling with fresh fair wind the limp sails of the much hyped but not terribly productive "reset." The absence of a solid economic basis in the US-Russia relationship and President Obama's declining popularity ratings do little to inspire optimism in the hearts of folks favoring better relations between the two nations. Could the military make progress where politics stalls? If the official statements by the RF Ministry of Defense and the Pentagon are anything to go by, no revolutionary ideas are currently to be expected from this visit. The statements are peppered with such words and phrases as "study," "examination," "exchanging experiences," and similar protocol banalities. It is not unlikely, though, that there are some secret agreements not intended for public consumption.
Yet, according to independent experts, there are at least two obvious military projects where Russia and the US could not only make very real steps toward mutually advantageous cooperation, but also contribute to the solution of the global security problem.
Finally, they are talking. I mean if the Chairman of the Duma's Foreign Relations Committee Konstantin Kosachev is saying things like that, it means something. Whether he consulted with the Kremlin before making such a bold and courageous statement or not is an open question, but when a man of his statue says that "our society is to no lesser extent the victim of the erstwhile regime, was no less articulate in condemning the crimes of Stalin's totalitarianism, and acted on its own, without external intervention and democratically, to remove the communist ideology from power," it tells you a lot.
Let us be fair. It is not easy for the country's leaders while the Communist Party (CPRF) still gets around 15 percent of the votes to say publicly that the Soviet system were a criminal one. And most likely the main reason why Lenin's tomb is still sitting on the Red Square is that no one wants CPRF to increase its ratings by getting their people on the streets to defend their beloved corpse.
An American friend wrote to me about the current Russian spy scandal in America: "Not good PR for you and [your friend] if he decides to go to Harvard... this is all hilarious... I'm loving all the coverage of a bunch of Russians getting paid to befriend Americans. I wish the U.S. had a program like this, I'd totally do this! Can you imagine?! I'd get my rent and tuition paid just to blurt out stuff that you can automatically look up (in even more depth) on the internet."
This ordinary American summed it all up in the brief four lines: this is funny, embarrassing, wasteful, and - most importantly - hurtful to many Russians like me--to those who honestly fight through American immigration hurdles, challenge the financial crisis to earn income, pass application tests and study hard to get American college and graduate degrees, make new life-long friends, fall in love with America's culture and natural beauty, and by default share their knowledge (and income) with Russian and American friends, families, businesses, and government agencies.
TIME: the Road from Western Capitals These Days Leads to Moscow
Yuri Mamchur
Presidents Obama and Medvedev enjoying burgers at Ray's Hell Burger in Virginia
Following the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum that hosted world's leading CEOs and once again brought together Medvedev and Sarkozy, and the casual lunch in Virginia where Medvedev and Obama ate burgers and split the fries, TIME wrote a refreshing article about Russia. Coincidentally, a week ago, I hosted in Moscow a friend, an American business owner. His conclusion was the following: given a) the demographics of Russia, b) Russia's wealth with natural resources, and c) Russia's central location to the world's fastest growing economies, Russia has no choice, but to grow. The West has no choice, but to participate in that growth.
Steve Jobs gave Dmitry Medvedev the new iPhone 4G. Luckily for Medvedev, his device came unlocked and he has already used it in Russia without any "help" from AT&T.
The children of Russia's baby-boomers grew up and are buying cars, refrigerators, and groceries. They also travel, and learn from their Western counterparts to love stuff. They spend money and learn and earn to spend even more. Russia is gifted with the natural resources. The climate change and advances in technology guarantee that Russia is not going to run out of oil, gas, gold, and timber any time soon. China, India, and Central Asia need Russia. Whether Europe and America like it or not, they need Russia too--in dealing with the Muslim world and expanding personal economies. Furthermore, Americans who tend to be idealistic and sum up things to all-or-nothing (let's say, perceived human rights vs. possible economic gains), in large missed the boat of Russian opportunities: French Ashan took the place of America's Wal-Mart, German Metro Cash and Carry eliminated opportunities for Costco, and Starbucks is shy in stealing customers from Russia's Coffee House and Shokoladnitsa.
June 12: Russia Day or Remember Tsar Mikhail II Day?
W George Krasnow
On June 12, 1918, Grand Duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich (henceforth Michael) and his secretary Brian Johnson, a Brit, were randomly executed in the outskirts of the far away city of Perm in the Ural Mountains. A year ago, Russia "rehabilitated" both, along with other Romanov-related victims of Soviet repression. The decision followed a similar act about Tsar Nicholas II and his family on October 1, 2008.
However, the Russian media at large failed to single Michael out from among the other Romanovs. Didn't Tsar Nicholas abdicate in favor of Michael, his younger brother? If so, shouldn't he be treated as Michael II, the last of the Romanov tsars?
Yes, he should. So thinks Donald Crawford, the co-author of a 1997 book Michael and Natasha: The Life and Love of Michael II, the Last of the Romanov Tsars. Crawford is a lawyer and the publisher of "Parliamentary Briefs" in London. He is fully aware of deviations from the law in both Nicholas's abdication and Michael's deferring his assumption of power contingent upon the decision of the popularly elected Constituent Assembly. However, Crawford insists that those deviations were necessary in order to save the spirit of the law and Russia herself. He is right in calling Michael "the last of the Romanov tsars." Not for the sake of anybody's vanity, of which Michael had none. But for the sake of extraordinary legacy that Michael bequeathed to Russia. That legacy is worthy of any tsar.
Patriarch Kirill: Leader of Orthodox Church and Tobacco Imports
Yuri Mamchur
Many Westerners know little about the new Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Father Kirill. Many Russians know him as a great orator and a host of a weekly TV show "Pastor's Word." However, very few know that Kirill (Vladimir Gundyaev by passport), a billionaire and a former KGB operative, made his fortune in tobacco, alcohol, and oil sales. His activities were among the main reasons why not-for-profits in Russia lost tax-deductible status. The new Orthodox leader is fond of playing with stocks, car racing, downhill skiing, and breeding exclusive kinds of dogs. He owns villas in Switzerland and a penthouse with a view of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow.
After Patriarch Aleksiy II died, the Orthodox Synode, made up of spiritual, business, and social leaders, took up the evening news and the Cathedral of Christ the Savior to elect a new leader. After Mitropolits Filaret and Kliment withdrew their candidacies, Kirill won the position. When it became too obvious that Aleksiy was at the end of his life, Mitropolit Mephody, who had been considered the strongest candidate for the Patriarch's post, was sent to lead the Orthodox Church in Kazakhstan. Maybe just a coincidence, but rumors and articles in local newspapers suggested a different scenario. I heard all the stories from friends while witnessing the historic events in Moscow. Later, I took time to research whether or not they were true.
What Does Russia's New Foreign Policy Doctrine Mean?
Edward Lozansky
I'd disagree with the widespread notion that Russia's new foreign policy doctrine (or rather proposals for changes in the current foreign policy in the document under discussion) is oriented toward the West. After reading carefully that Foreign Ministry document, I'd say that it is oriented toward West, East, South, North, and any other direction that has a potential for promoting Russia's interests.
The prefix "pro-" in the above interpretation of the proposals is clearly out of place. In realpolitik, any "pro-" subsumes that there is a balancing "anti-" somewhere, overtly or covertly. Not in this document. If anything, it is simply pro-Russian and definitely not anti-- any nation or group of nations.
The only rational interpretation of the thinking underlying this document is that Russia should strive to develop closer political, economic, social and even perhaps military ties with the Euro-Atlantic community or, to put it a bit bolder, civilization - but not at the expense of the other parts of the world.
Color Revolutions Flopped. Where Do We Go from Here?
Edward Lozansky
In Kyrgyzstan, 78 peaceful protestors were killed by police and security of President Bakiyev who took power in 2005 by overthrowing the previous corrupt regime. It took Baikev only five years to become just as corrupt as his predecessor.
The turn of the century was a time of great promise for the USA. It witnessed the collapse of communism and of the USSR; the disappearance from the world scene of America's main geopolitical adversary; and an unconditional victory of the ideas of freedom, democracy, and free market over totalitarian regimes and planned economy dominated by ideological shibboleths. The West was euphoric; the pervading idea was that an era of universal well-being was at hand. The philosopher Francis Fukuyama encapsulated the sentiment in his famous phrase, "end of history": humanity had reached the acme of its progress, and there were no more horizons to conquer.
Actually another, no less famous philosopher, name of Karl Marx, had made similar predictions over a century earlier. He wrote that the evolution of human societies was not endless; it would reach its apogee when humankind had achieved a socioeconomic formation in which man's most profound and fundamental aspirations were satisfied. Marx referred to that form of social organization as communism. Unfortunately for Marxist philosophy and fortunately for mankind, at the end of the 20th century communism, contrary to its founder's forecast, went down the ashes of world history.
Back in 1974 Senator Henry (Scoop) Jackson and Representative Charles Vanik introduced an amendment to a trade law with the purpose of punishing the Soviet Union and other communist countries for the denial of emigration rights to their citizens. At the time it was a justified decision, but in case someone forgot the evil empire has been gone since 1991. Unfortunately, for one of its former parts which never had any emigration restrictions, the Russian Federation, the Jackson-Vanik amendment remains in force. Strictly speaking, the amendment has been a dead letter since 1994 due to a ritual of annual Presidential waivers based on humiliating compliance reviews. Yet it continues to be a constant irritant in U.S.-Russia relations, and therefore should be repealed for good without further delay. It is easier said than done as both the Clinton and Bush administrations tried to get rid of this amendment but failed miserably since the U.S. Congress has the authority to act and refuses to go along.
It is pretty ironic, if not pathetic, that one of the most important stumbling blocks on the way to the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment are innocent American chickens or "Bush legs," as they call them in Russia. I am not talking, of course, about these pretty little birds but about one of the most powerful U.S. lobbies called the "Chicken Lobby" or "Big Chicken." This lobby helps producers sell as much poultry as possible, but as in any trade there are some periodical disputes between the exporters and importers. In normal circumstances, such disputes should be handled through standard commercial negotiation processes. However, "Big Chicken" uses its enormous influence and puts pressure on Congress and the administration to highly politicize this trade and block Russia's graduation from Jackson-Vanik unless it buys huge poultry volumes.
There has been much strident rhetoric in recent years regarding a Bering Strait Crossing and Intercontinental Railway System. I first proposed such a system in 1995 for several reasons. At the time, I was unaware that this idea had first been explored over a century before. Since 1995, I have refined my proposal into a project that is more realistic and within the realm of possibility.
Crossing the Bering Strait and building an Intercontinental Railway System is by no means a simple or easy task. Nothing good in life is! The pros and cons of any large project are usually "six of one and a half a dozen of the other", as the saying goes. There is the indisputable fact that climate in the Arctic and Bering Strait area is inhospitable most of the time and construction of a project of this magnitude would be difficult. Furthermore, the fact that Russia and Alaska are moving toward each other at about 16.5 mm per year, and that we are dealing with a seismically active region, presents a unique set of problems. In addition there are the complicated geopolitical problems and the very serious environmental concerns. And then the final question we must address: What useful purpose does such a project serve?
Improving Russia's Image and Russo-Ukrainian Relations
Michael Averko
Russia's dynamic duo performing this past January 1, on Russian TV station Channel One
Options and Opposing Views
Russia's expatriate population is the subject of Alexei Bayer's recent article in The Moscow Times. He ends the article with a general note on how Russia can gain with a return of some of its expatriates. To an extent, this has happened. Some Russians have decided to return to Russia, without the Russian government actively egging them on. In addition, the Russian government has undergone a program to encourage people of Russian origin to live in Russia.
It is also advantageous for Russia to have an expatriate community. Abroad, these Russians are in a position to provide a better understanding of their native land to others at a grass roots level. In addition, the utilization of Western savvy, patriotically inclined Russians within the more high profile of Western based media and public relations organizations benefits Russia. The ideal individuals for this undertaking are those offering constructive criticisms of Russia, while being aware of the biases against that country and the valid/underrepresented counterpoints to them. Not to be overlooked are people of a more distant Russian origin and non-Russians, exhibiting the same understanding. How to successfully level the playing field is something that continues to be problematical.
The 2004 poster reads "Yushchenko - the People's President." In Jan 18, 2010 Ukrainian presidential elections Mr. Yushchenko received only 6 percent of the vote.
On the one hand the stunning defeat of Viktor Yushchenko, and by extension of the whole Orange carnival, is a welcome event for Russia and for Ukraine as well. However, one shouldn't get too ecstatic because there is also a substantial potential danger ahead. The outgoing president leaves to his successor an economy in shambles, a devalued currency, a huge budget deficit and a national debt of over $33 billion. In addition, Yushchenko did all he could to divide the country's population along ethnic lines by suppressing the Russian language, building memorials and presenting national awards to Nazi collaborators and mass executioners.
In any event, whoever wins the elections on February 7 will deliver to Moscow both good and some bad news. The good news is that the new president will be more Russia-friendly, will stop talking about NATO membership, will consider extension of the lease of the Russian Black Sea Naval base at Sevastopol and will probably make a few other friendly gestures. The bad news is that none of the above is born out of deep and unselfish love for mother Russia; on the contrary, they come with an impressive price tag.
How Many Polish "Patriots" Does It Take to Screw Up US -- Russia Relations?
Edward Lozansky
Patriot missiles
Americans are great fans of Polish jokes; there is a whole website boasting hundreds of them: www.polishjoke.com. Arguably the best known is the one about changing a bulb procedure (it takes at least four Poles to do that). This and other jokes on this site are pretty harmless and can be said to apply to almost any ethnic group. However, the much hyped deployment of US Patriot missiles on Polish territory next to the city of Kaliningrad to repulse potential Russian aggression could well make a worthy addition to this particular site, except that this is no laughing matter at all. Obviously, Washington needed a symbolic gesture of sorts to gild the pill of scrapping its missile-defense-shield-in-Poland plan. However, if this gesture is strictly symbolic, a more unsuitable place and time for it would be hard to find. Because whereas previously Russia was told that it had nothing to worry about BMD-wise, as the sole purpose of the system was destruction of Iranian or North Korean missiles, the Patriots are certainly intended to repulse a potential missile attack by Russia.
Wouldn't be wiser for Washington to resort to some other, more appropriate symbolism to reassure Poland, or rather its "Patriotic" leaders, and allay their fears of Russian invasion. The easiest and most obvious gesture to make would be faxing or e-mailing to all and sundry the text of Article 5 from the NATO Charter, which organization Poland has been a member of since 1999. Under this Article the entire military might of almost 30 member states, including the US and most EU countries shall be employed to come to Poland's rescue and rebuff such an aggression if it would ever take place. Isn't this enough, and why bother with Patriots then?
This publication tries to debunk some popular, but misguided, views on demographic trends in today's Russia. These consist of the perception that Russia is in a demographic "death spiral" that dooms it to national decline (Biden, Eberstadt, NIC, CIA, Stratfor, etc). Some extreme pessimists even predict that ethnic Russians - ravaged by AIDS, infertility and alcoholism - will die out as an ethnicity, displaced by Islamist hordes and Chinese settlers (Steyn, Collard).
The Myth of Russia's Demographic Apocalypse
Think again. While it is true that Russia's current demographic situation is nothing to write home about, most of the demographic trends that matter are highly positive - and there is compelling evidence that Russia can still return to a healthy, longterm pattern of sustainable population replacement.
1. MYTH: Russia is losing 750,000 of its population per year and will become depopulated within decades.
REALITY: In 1992, for the first time since the Great Patriotic War, deaths exceeded births in Russia, forming the so-called "Russian Cross". Since then the population fell from 149mn to 142mn souls. However, the rate of depopulation has slowed massively in recent years.
From left to right: Yushchenko, Timoshenko, and Yanukovych
Five years have gone by as one day. Only yesterday, it seems, we saw jubilant crowds in Kiev celebrating the victory of democracy in Ukraine. Small wonder, too -- the pro-Western Victor Yushchenko had contrived to wrest victory from his hateful namesake, pro-Russia Yanukovich. The former, cruelly poisoned (allegedly by none other than Putin), had miraculously risen from the dead, won the election and was about to guide Ukraine to a life of plenty in the European Union and NATO. The unimpeachable teaching of George Bush about the inevitable spread of democracy across the world had yet again been proved right. Besides, no less importantly, the Orange Revolution turned out to be relatively inexpensive to fund. Especially compared to the business of promoting democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, where thousands of young Americans and Europeans from NATO countries continue to die and hundreds of billions of dollars continue to be spent.
According to Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, in Ukraine the price barely came to several dozen million dollars. However, as he lacked precise statistics, the actual sum could have been considerably larger. The congressman called on the White House Administration and the US General Accounting Office to look into the Ukrainian election's cost to the American taxpayer, and what exactly that money had paid for, yet his appeals fell on deaf ears. That so greatly incensed Ron Paul that he accused the US Government of hypocrisy. On the one hand, said the congressman, we are against external interference in another state's election, but on the other we send money to Ukraine to sway the vote there.
In Russia, presidential New Year's address to the nation is traditionally aired each December 31, five minutes before midnight. Watch Dmitry Medvedev's address from December 31, 2009.
For Russia, 2009 was a pretty difficult year on the domestic front. It was saturated with severe economic and financial crises as well as horrible terrorist attacks and several man-made catastrophes. Nevertheless, the Russians not only proved once again that they can withstand disaster with dignity, but even in these most difficult times they achieved some impressive results in economic and social areas. The economy started to grow and the performance of the stock market was one of the world's best. The shops are full of goods and customers, travel abroad is on the rise, and cultural life is bustling at least in the large cities.
However, three huge and potentially devastating problems remain unresolved and actually are getting worse: poor demography, monstrous corruption, and severe alcoholism. If one compares the number of people per square kilometer in of Russia (8), the United States (50) and China (220), the picture is gloomy. Moreover, this ratio keeps changing, and unfortunately not in Russia's favor. Will the country in the years ahead have enough manpower to implement Medvedev's dreams of innovations and modernization, to serve in its army, or at least to hold on to its huge landmass?
The Captive Nations Resolution and Other US Relics of the Cold War
W George Krasnow
Remarks by Dr. W. George Krasnow at a panel discussion of the 92nd anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution and the 20th anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall. [1]
President Reagan holds up a proclamation designating Captive Nations Week after signing it in a Rose Garden ceremony.
First, I salute the sponsor of our panel, the Conflict Solutions International. It is a team of independent pro bono lawyers whose mission is to prevent new threats to peace and security in the world. Strategically located in Washington DC, the CSI relies on volunteers throughout the world. Striving to ameliorate current conflicts, they serve as fact-finders, monitors and mediators.
As president of the Russia & America Goodwill Associates (RAGA), an informal organization of Americans favoring better relations with Russia, I cannot think of a better forum. The goals of RAGA are the same as those of the CSI. Luckily, since the Fall of the Wall, Russia and the United States do not have unsolvable conflicts. Whatever conflicts they now have are not of the kind that existed during the Cold War, when the world's very survival was at stake.
Who Should Apologize for the Wrongs of the Soviet Union?
Edward Lozansky
A column of refugees in the Soviet Union, following the German invasion of Soviet territory on June 22, 1941.
In his recent article in the Daily Telegraph (December 3, 2009) George Feifer suggests that "instead of trying to justify Soviet wrongs all these years later, why doesn't it [Russia] apologize, as Germany has for its 20th-century atrocities?" According to this author, apologies are due above all to the Baltic and East European countries.
As someone who for decades participated in many activities to resist the Soviet regime, standing shoulder to shoulder with people from the "Captive Nations" during their fight for freedom and independence, I believe that Feifer's demands are misdirected, ill-timed and generally worthless, if not harmful.
A spoof on the 19th century Anglo-Russo "Great Game" rivalry in Central Asia
An October 13 RT (no longer officially known as Russia Today) segment discussed some international issues regarding Afghanistan and Russia. The following viewpoint is expressed in that segment: "When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan they were viewed as being hostile by everyone, while the US is really not viewed as an occupier. The Soviets were always viewed as an occupier."
Afghans at large deserved better than the Soviet supported regimes in their country. There were Afghans who collaborated with these regimes. The last Afghan Communist regime lasted three years after the Soviet military withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989. (This length of time is not so different from how long the South Vietnamese government lasted after American forces left Vietnam.) Besides the foreign meddling, Afghanistan has had other problems, which were to become more evident after the Soviet forces withdrew from there in 1989. At the height of the Soviet military intervention in that nation, I recall a buried in the back of The New York Times piece on how a good number of the armed anti-Soviet Afghans opposed Western values, Israel and women's rights.
In the past two decades, the world has witnessed yet another historical opportunity missed: the fall of the Berlin Wall has not led to a logical conclusion -- Russia's full economic, political and even military integration with Europe and the West in general. In the recent past, Russia's Westernizers' centuries-old dream of joining Europe was nearly within reach, but then it faded again, to wait for another miracle.
In the 19th century that goal was closer than ever, as Europe and Russia were strongly linked within a unified cultural and economic space despite their religious differences and many political upheavals. Even Fedor Dostoyevsky, generally highly critical of the West, noted that Russia needed Europe, and that Europe was Russia's second Fatherland.
The Bolshevik coup of October 1917 destroyed the natural process of Russia drifting toward Europe, but the end of the bloody communist experiment should have removed the remaining barriers for that process. However, this has not happened so far. Now, will it take place, at long last? Will Russia even try to overcome the West's rejection as the balance of world power is shifting to Asia?
Iran's nuclear ambitions, the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, and the rising threat of Islamic fundamentalism, not only present a clear and extreme danger, but also provide the perfect logical base for closer U.S.-Russian cooperation. Of course, it is always easier to say what should have been done afterward, but shouldn't we at least learn some lessons from the not-so-distant past? No matter how much we despised and hated communism and the Soviet rulers, politicians with vision could have predicted the disastrous consequence of supplying the Afghan Mujahedeen, including Terrorist Number One Osama bin Laden himself, with tons of cash and the most sophisticated weaponry, like Stinger rockets.
After Jimmy Carter, along with his National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, yielded Iran to the Ayatollahs, it became pretty obvious that Islamic militancy was becoming a major threat to the West, a threat which overshadowed even the Soviet one. Anyone with basic understanding of the internal situation in Soviet Union knew that by the late 1970s - early 1980s, communism has exhausted its zeal. Not only did the Soviet intelligentsia reject its appeal, but even the highest Kremlin rulers, including members of Politburo, were privately laughing at their own speeches and slogans. Telling anecdotes and humiliating jokes about communism became major social entertainment. This, together with the sad state of the Soviet economy, should have led the White House to let communism pass into the ashes of history by way of a natural death, instead of creating a supposedly anti-Soviet Frankenstein's monster, who has turned out to be the worst U.S. and European nightmare.
Missile Defense Shield in Eastern Europe Kaput. Now What?
Edward Lozansky
Last week was marked by two intimately connected major events: Obama announced the scrapping of the plan to deploy Missile Defense Shield elements in Eastern Europe, and NATO Secretary General Anders Rasmussen made an arguably even more impressive speech listing three global security initiatives aimed at rapprochement with Russia. It would hardly be an overstatement to call the two events historic, for never before have a US president and a NATO secretary general made such promising and friendly moves toward Russia, and not just by word but actually by deed. NATO's readiness for a joint US-Russian missile defense system and a serious consideration of Medvedev's idea for a new Euro-Atlantic security architecture amounts to acknowledging Russia's role as a major player on the European continent. This can also be regarded as an invitation to Russia to complete a military and eventually also a political and economic integration with the West.
The content of Obama's speech came as no surprise due to leaks to the press long before the official announcement. As was to be expected, both in America and in other countries, particularly in Poland and the Czech Republic, a massive campaign to condemn this decision was launched even before the speech. Vitriolic outbursts accusing Obama, at best, of weakness, incompetence and enormous concessions to Russia, and at worst, of something amounting to the betrayal of the country's interests, inundated the US media. It has to be said, though, that there were also numerous supporters of Obama's decision, even among prominent republicans, such as Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser under George Bush Sr., and many others.
Was There a Deal Behind the Missile Shield Decision?
Bruce Chapman
Russia's Dmitry Medvedev, Poland's Lech Kaczynski, and America's Barack Obama
Russian authorities are happy, Czech and Polish officials feel as if they have been used and abused by the United States, and Republicans are outraged that President Obama has decided to scrap plans to build a missile defense in Eastern Europe. The stated purpose was to guard Europe against intimidation by a nuclear Iran, but Russia professed to feel threatened and encircled. Now, presumably, Russians don't feel threatened and Iranians feel liberated to move ahead with nuclear development.
But here is the real test of this decision: did the U.S. gain anything by it in terms of protection of Europe (and Israel) against Iranian nukes? The next few months will tell.
The USSR and the USA were strangely but truly united in working against nuclear proliferation for a couple of decades--the 70s and 80s. In my time as US ambassador to the UN Organizations in Vienna in the 1980s this was the one field of relations in which mutual cooperation was sincere and real. Indeed, the way in which the United States came closer to the USSR at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) after the Chernobyl nuclear accident in the Ukraine in 1986 may be cited as a key turning point in the relationship that hastened "perestroika" and the thawing of the Cold War. The Soviets realized that we really didn't want to humiliate them, but only to help them deal with a real crisis. It led to a breakthrough that extended beyond the nuclear realm.
The Misconception of Russian Authoritarianism: Part 9 - The Pendulum: A Model for Understanding Political Transitions in Russia
Kevin Cyron
A few of the most famous Russians who ever lived
Editor's note: In this ninth part of his masters thesis, "The Misconception of Russian Authoritarianism", St. Petersburg University graduate Kevin Cyron argues that Russia has become so thoroughly integrated into the global economy that it can never return to a truly authoritarian system of government.
Click on the links to read previous installments in this series: I II III IV V VI VII VIII
Click on the extended post to read part nine of the extended essay.
Moscow River embankment on a summer night (Photo by Yuri Mamchur)
MOSCOW -- German Sterligov is well known here, but unlike Roman Abramovich, Oleg Deripaska, and other publicly flamboyant Russian billionaires, he is little known abroad. Sterligov neither sails the Caribbean nor drinks in London's Mayfair district; most of the time he lives a traditional peasant lifestyle deep in the Russian countryside with his wife and five children. In winter, their farm is accessible only by horse-drawn cart, and the nearest house is seven miles away. Sterligov's way of life makes a strong Russian Orthodox statement and amuses Moscow's public.
Sterligov made his fortune in the 1990s running a large barter business. He founded a mercantile exchange where Russians traded products they were unable to buy or sell for cash. He lived the luxurious life of a billionaire and owned properties in Moscow, London, and Manhattan. In 2004, after an ill-fated bid for Russia's presidency, Sterligov sold everything and moved to the countryside.
The recent signing of the Nabucco pipeline project is definitely a political rather than economic deal. Its feasibility, the probability of its actual construction and its profitability aside, the deal shows clearly that, at least for the present, those who want to see a weaker Russia prevail over those who would rather see it strong and an integral part of the West. It is also obvious that without heavy Washington lobbying the Nabucco pipeline would never take off. Since there is practically no economic interest for the U.S. in it, Washington politics make the direction of the much advertised "reset" quite uncertain.
In the last 20 years since the collapse of communism every U.S. president has kept repeating that it is in American interests to see Russia as a strong, democratic, and prosperous nation. But actions rarely suit the words. Washington needs, and often gets, Moscow's cooperation on major security issues, but then it turns around and does its damnedest not only to prevent "non-democratic" and "authoritarian" Moscow from becoming an energy superpower, but to make sure that it gets as little cash as possible -- by diverting this cash to former Soviet republics where democracy is so rudimentary as to be barely discernible, while Oriental despotism, sometimes hereditary, is very much in evidence. So much for the hugely advertised U.S. democracy promotion mission.
Chapter 1 of Dr. Ablayev's book "Regional Gold Markets in Russia's Economy", from which this piece is excerpted, deals with how Russia emerged from a command, non-market economy to its current status where the integration of the market into the authoritarian model of Russian governance is causing what he calls a "vertical layering" of the market. As a result, a unique Russian multi-level market system has been created.
The Misconception of Russian Authoritarianism: Part 10 - Russia's Future: Reasons for Optimism
Kevin Cyron
Russian children at Tsarskoe Tselo outside St. Petersburg, October 2007 Photo by: Charles Ganske
Editor's note: In this tenth and final part of his masters thesis, "The Misconception of Russian Authoritarianism", St. Petersburg University graduate Kevin Cyron presents the Soviet dissident writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn's response to the charge that his country has reverted to authoritarianism under the Putin Administration. Mr. Cyron also reminds us that democracy is a process and not a destination for any nation. Mr. Cyron concludes with optimism for the future of Russia and the Russian people.
Click on the links to read previous installments in this series: I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX
Click on the extended post to read the tenth and final installment in this series
Forget Me Not. Obama's Russian "Reset" Risks Alienating Eastern European Allies
Mike Wussow
Fresh from a widely anticipated foreign visit designed to "reset" relations with Moscow, U.S. President Barack Obama was welcomed on Thursday morning with a letter from former Eastern European leaders saying there is "nervousness in our capitals" with regard to a potentially redefined U.S.-Russia relationship.
We want to ensure that too narrow an understanding of Western interests does not lead to the wrong concessions to Russia. ... The danger is that Russia's creeping intimidation and influence-peddling in the region could over time lead to a de facto neutralization of the region.
The letter, signed by former Eastern European leaders and published in Poland's Gazeta Wyborcza urges President Obama to strengthen the U.S. relationship with the countries of Eastern and Central Europe. Explicit concerns about Russia stand out in the letter, although the signatories (which include Poland's Lech Walesa and the Czech Republic's Vaclav Havel) also write of other areas of concern such as weakened European Union-U.S. relations.
The Misconception of Russian Authoritarianism: Part 5 - Boris Yeltsin and the Struggle for Russian Democracy in the 1990s
Kevin Cyron
Boris Yeltsin remains a controversial figure in Russian history
Editor's note: In this fifth part of his masters thesis, "The Misconception of Russian Authoritarianism", St. Petersburg University graduate Kevin Cyron examines the chaotic conditions in Russia during the administration of Russian President Boris Yeltsin, comparing it to similar episodes in U.S. history. The Yeltsin era, with its expansion of NATO up to Russia's doorstep, and ethnic violence in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, paved the way for the current backlash from a resurgent Russia.
Click on the links to read previous installments in this series: I, II, III, and IV
Click on the extended post to read part five in the extended essay.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the Russians might secretly be conspiring with the United States against your government? I know it sounds far-fetched, but, after all, far-fetched is practically your middle name. (As, for example, your denial of the Holocaust. That is about as far-fetched as anyone can get.)
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's recent announcement of a government-sanctioned Historic Truth Commission to debunk myths about Russia's role in the Second World War has come under fire from critics in the West. Even many patriotic Russians annoyed with Western ignorance of the decisive role played by Russia in defeating Nazi Germany have argued that a state-sanctioned commission may do more harm than good. Irrespective of the ongoing arguments between Russia and its neighbors over who is distorting 20th century history for present political ends, there are some lingering myths about the Second World War that deserve to be debunked. Anatoly Karlin lists a few in the article below.
- The Editors
За Ð½Ð°Ñ Ð·Ð° Ð²Ð°Ñ Ð¸ за деÑант и за Ñпецназ! The Red Army was the single greatest contributor to the defeat of Nazi Germany sixty-four years ago, a truly evil empire based on slavery and oppression, and responsible for the genocide of millions of Slav civilians, Jews, Soviet POWs and Roma by poison gas, bullets and starvation. Yet ever since the first days of the Cold War, there has been a concerted campaign to whitewash the Wehrmacht of participation in war crimes and to rehabilitate the generals who participated in it as enthusiastically as Hitler and the upper echelons of the Nazi Party. This resulted in the promulgation of many poisonous myths about the Eastern Front that are only now being laid to rest.
I already wrote about several of these myths in my article Top 10 Russophobe Myths. In the service of historic truth, here are a few points to consider about how the history of the Second World War has been distorted by myths, particularly as they apply to the most brutal campaign in human history, the war waged between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1945.
Presidents Barack Obama and Dimitry Medvedev at their first meeting on April 1, 2009 in London, UK
There is no shortage of solicited and unsolicited advisors and pieces of advice for the upcoming Obama-Medvedev summit this week in Moscow. Some of the advice is pretty reasonable; for the most part it is best ignored. One's first instinct is to stay away from this cacophony and try to moderate one's expectations so as not to be hugely disappointed later.
However, the temptation to weigh in with one's particular advice is very high. Since both Obama and Medvedev are Internet users one does not have to send a letter to the White House or the Kremlin and wait for the routine answer from some clerk. Chances are that both or at least one of them will surf the Net on the eve of the summit and pay attention to some of the items.
The Misconception of Russian Authoritarianism Part 7 - The Reforms of Vladimir Putin Economics, Demographics and Rule of Law
Kevin Cyron
Christmas 2007 in Moscow
Editor's note: In this seventh part of his masters thesis, "The Misconception of Russian Authoritarianism", St. Petersburg University graduate Kevin Cyron examines the major changes during the last eight years in Russia's economy, demographics, news media, courts, and civil society.
Click on the links to read previous installments in this series: I II III IV V VI
Click on the extended post to read part seven in the extended essay.
Boris Yeltsin, on top of a tank in Moscow, declaring an end to the Soviet regime in 1991
When the featured article was being written, the author and the Iranian people still had hopes to find leadership to their quest for freedom. Unfortunately, Mir Hossein Mousavi has not appeared in front of the protestors since the elections of June 12, and yesterday rejected another vote recount. The recent activities in Iran are, undoubtedly, a huge step forward in fostering democracy in this majority Muslim nation. However, they will result in nothing without proper leadership. Russia and China did not have to recognize, much less defend, Ahmadinejad's victory as soon as they did, but perhaps they knew the painful truth ahead of time: the Iranian opposition has no leader, and a leader is what is so desperately needed at this historic moment.
Charles Krauthammer's article published over at Townhall.com on June 26 does a great job of describing the difference between Russia's 1991 and Iran's 2009: "They need a leader like Boris Yeltsin: a former establishment figure with newly revolutionary credentials and legitimacy, who stands on a tank and gives the opposition direction by calling for the unthinkable -- the abolition of the old political order." Most Russians remember Yeltsin as a despot, a drunk, and a sometimes embarrassing grandpa. World history will remember him as the man who ended 70 years of an Evil Empire, permanently curing Russia's infection of Communism. Hopefully, four years from now, an Iranian Yeltsin will stand up on a tank and prove that innocent protestors did not die in vain.
Visit the extended post to read the full version of the discussed article.
The Misconception of Russian Authoritarianism: Part 8 - The Return to Security Orthodoxy, Leadership, and Russian Identity
Kevin Cyron
Then President and now Prime Minister Putin at a Russian Orthodox religious service
Editor's note: In this eighth part of his masters thesis, "The Misconception of Russian Authoritarianism", St. Petersburg University graduate Kevin Cyron examines the historically close ties between Russia's national leadership and the Russian Orthodox Church.
Click on the links to read previous installments in this series: I II III IV V VI VII
Click on the extended post to read part seven in the extended essay.
Iranian protesters confronted by basij militias on the streets of Tehran
Over at Discovery Blog, Ambassador Bruce Chapman is writing about the current upheaval of popular discontent against the Islamic Republic regime in Iran. Nearly three years ago, Discovery Institute hosted Amir Abbas Fakhravar at its Seattle offices. Mr. Fakhravar is a former head of the Iran Student Confederation who was previously jailed and tortured for his opposition to the Islamic Republic regime. You can read Mr. Fakhravar's blog here.
So far, Russian diplomats have maintained a firm "no comment" policy concerning the ongoing power struggle inside Iran. [UPDATE: The Russian Foreign Ministry released a statement concerning the post-election revolt today, not over the weekend when this story was written]. But since Russia has already been mentioned in passing in some analysis of the crisis inside Iran, it's worth looking at the facts surrounding the complicated relationship between Tehran and Moscow.
In the Eighties, lots of folks who regarded themselves as true Reaganites often said that The Washington Post should more properly bear the title of "Pravda on the Potomac". Indeed, the paper's vicious anti-Ronny rhetoric, as well as its views on some other policy issues, were stylistically pretty close to Pravda in its heyday.
Ironically, with the collapse of Communism "Pravda on the Potomac" became a common epithet for The Washington Post not only among the people on the right but on the left and center as well. A recent Google search on this entry provided 13,100 links including articles and sites representing practically the whole spectrum of American politics.
Anatol Lieven is a Senior Research Fellow at the New America Foundation.
Over the last several days, two pieces attacking the realist approach to Russia were published in prominent media outlets in the United States and Russia. One, co-authored by Lev Gudkov of the Levada Center, Igor Klyamkin, vice president of the Liberal Mission Foundation, Georgy Satarov, president of the Russian NGO the Indem Foundation and Lilia Shevtsova, a senior associate at the Carnegie Moscow Center was featured on the editorial page of The Washington Post.
[Editor's Note: This article is titled "False Choices for Russia", an excerpt of which was republished on Russia Blog earlier this month in the post "What Can Save Russia's Liberals" by Ambassador Bruce Chapman]. The other, by Andrei Piontkovsky, a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute, was released in the Moscow Times.
I read these pieces concerning the moves to improve relations between America and Russia with a profound feeling of depression.
Editor's Note: This is a succinct summary of the article "Rite of Spring: Russia's Fertility Trends" previously published by Russia Blog on April 29, 2009. To find more articles on Russian demographics, click here.
In 1992, for the first time since the Great Patriotic War, deaths exceeded births, forming the so-called "Russian Cross". Since then the population fell from 149mn to 142mn souls. Ravaged by AIDS, infertility and alcoholism, Russians are doomed to die out and be replaced by hordes of Islamist fanatics in the West and Chinese settlers in the Far East...or so one could conclude from reading many of the popular stories about Russian demography today.
"Don't bother pushing the ambiguous Reset Button; just replace the whole operating system." That's the advice offered President Obama and President Medvedev at the 28th Annual World Russia Forum that took place 27-28 April in Washington. Since 1981 the Forum has been organized by Edward Lozansky's American University in Moscow (AUM). Of late, Discovery Institute of Seattle, Eurasia Center of Washington, the Congress of Russian Americans, and Aeroflot airlines joined this effort at people's diplomacy to improve US -Russia relations.
The Forum attracted a powerful array of speakers, such as former US Ambassadors to Russia, Thomas Pickering and William Burns; former National Security Adviser (under President Reagan) Robert McFarlane; and Russia experts professors Marshall Goldman of Harvard and Robert Legvold of Columbia University. The Russian side was represented by Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, Dr. Igor Panarin of the Russian Diplomatic Academy, and Dr. Sergey Rogov, head of the Institute of USA and Canada, among others. (View the photo report).
An afternoon at the Moscow's Victory Park (photo by Yuri Mamchur)
Yesterday, The Washington Postpublished Mr. Lev Gudkov's article "False Choices For Russia" (see below). This article is more an attitude than a program. It doesn't really say what Russians or Americans should do to promote "democracy" in Russia. But I have an idea for the Russians: the liberal parties and politicians should stop fracturing and running assorted parties and come together in one party with one agenda that has a chance of actually getting people elected to office. Sitting on the outside with a tiny percentage of the vote split several ways--and then whining about it--is not the pathway to success.
Even in the United States no one listens to the little parties. A liberal national party with a chance of success would have to have a combination of groups and interests, some willingness to compose differences among them and then a clear reform agenda that had appeal to the common man and woman. Then they would have a chance of success.
Last week President Dmitry Medvedev formed a government commission on analyzing and suppressing falsifications of history to the detriment of Russia. Some have rushed to portray this move as an "Orwellian Truth Commission" dedicated to official propaganda of the historical facts that fit the government's interpretation of history. Indeed, one may be tempted to form such a conclusion simply by looking at the commission's appointees. What is Medvedev likely to accomplish by forming this commission? Is this the right way to approach this issue, or are there more subtle ways to deal with the problem? -- Dr. Vladimir Frolov
One should wait, of course, for the commission to undertake some specific actions before criticizing it, but knowing how bureaucracy works, one could safely assume with high probability that whoever came up with the idea to create a "Commission on Analyzing and Suppressing Falsifications of History Detrimental to Russia" did not do a good service to his country or to president Medvedev, for that matter. Leaving aside its dubious name, this commission will do more in creating controversy than in helping Russia to withstand the information warfare conducted by its foes. Instead of taking a high road and leaving the word battles to historians and experts, the Kremlin set itself on a par with those ill-wishers who try to use history for political purposes at the pundit or state level.
The Misconception of Russian Authoritarianism: Part 6 - The Reforms of Vladimir Putin Strengthening Security and Governance
Kevin Cyron
Editor's note: In this sixth part of his masters thesis, "The Misconception of Russian Authoritarianism", St. Petersburg University graduate Kevin Cyron examines the changes ushered in by the Putin Adminstration, and Russia's progress in the past eight years.
Click on the links to read previous installments in this series: I, II, III, IV, V
Click on the extended post to read part six in the extended essay.
Michael Averko addressing the guests of the World Russia Forum in Washington D.C.
Last month's parliamentary election and political demonstration in Moldova led to greater attention focused on that country. A few relatively high placed articles on the subject have been followed up on.
Appearing shortly before the vote and protest, Vlad Spanu's March 20 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) commentary "Backroom Deals Can't Solve Transdniester Dispute" acknowledges the popularity of Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev in Moldova, where they have respectively run 1-2 in popularity among politicians worldwide. This point relates to the simultaneous desires of wanting good relations with the West, without being so against Russia and its leadership.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times. E. Wayne Merry was a speaker at the World Russia Forum which was recently held in Washington, D.C. by Discovery Institute and the American University in Moscow.
The Obama administration has offered to "reset" relations with Russia. But what is really needed is a change of operating system.
A reset seeks to restore a previous relationship, which for former officials of the Clinton administration now back in office means the Yeltsin years. This will fail because Moscow views that period as emblematic of Russian weakness and exploitation by the West, and especially by the United States.
Relations with Moscow deteriorated under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The U.S. neo-liberal project of the '90s not only failed but deeply alienated Russians. The bilateral nadir was the Kosovo war, a worse episode than last year's Georgia conflict. A new opportunity after 9/11 was frankly squandered. Washington regarded Russia as a loser and treated it as such. It forgot that Russia would not be weak forever, and would remember.
Only a couple of short months after the United States and Russia exchanged encouraging remarks about resetting troubled relations, the two countries find themselves again at odds over Georgia. Last week, NATO began monthlong military exercises in Georgia that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has called an "open provocation."
It's unfortunate that these current NATO exercises have the capacity to disrupt much broader strategic interests that the United States and Russia have in common, most notably the mutual fight against al Qaeda. At stake are strong U.S.-Russian cooperative efforts in defeating al Qaeda and stopping its encroachment into the Central Asian and Caucasus regions.
Russian troops entering South Ossetia last year after a Georgian offensive to retake the secessionist territory was repulsed by Russia.
The Russia-Georgia War in August 2008 has seriously exacerbated Russia's already damaged relationships with the West. If the Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, had won last November's election in the United States, the two countries might have moved to the next level of confrontation -- possibly of a military nature.
Few people in the U.S. political class have been more ardent in advocating U.S. ties with the small Georgia at the expense of relations with Russia. Some of McCain's advisers are also known to have worked as paid lobbyists for Georgia's membership in NATO. Clearly they are not concerned that, had Georgia been a member of the alliance when the violence erupted in South Ossetia, the United States would have been in a state of war with Russia.
The Atlantic Monthly Asks: "Is the U.S. Becoming Russia?"
Charles Ganske
The new U.S.-Russia arms race...bailouts and printing money?
In its May 2009 issue The Atlantic Monthly published an article featuring the provocative title, "Is the U.S. Becoming Russia?". The author, Simon Johnson, is an academic economist at MIT's Sloan School of Management and former director of the International Monetary Fund from 2007 to 2008. Prof. Johnson is intimately familiar with inner the workings of the IMF, the same Washington-based multinational agency that once extended billions in loans to Russia when Russians experienced hyperinflation and a banking system collapse in the 1990s. Regardless of whether one agrees with Johnson's thesis -- that the U.S. is rapidly starting to resemble the emerging market economies, such as Russia, that it once advised -- his article is well worth a good read.
The American Enterprise Institute's Nicholas Eberstadt has become one of the leading proponents of the notion that Russia is in a terminal state of demographic decline
Last month Ross Douthat, a regular columnist for The Atlantic Monthly magazine now with The New York Times, commented on a new essay by Nicholas Eberstadt on the declining population of Russia. Dr. Eberstadt, a political economist, is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington D.C. Eberstadt's most recent essay (with the perhaps insulting title), "Drunken Nation: Russia's Depopulation Bomb", which prompted Douthat's comments, is largely a rehash of his earlier report "Russia: The Sick Man of Europe" published in The Public Interest quarterly magazine back in the winter of 2004/2005.
Eberstadt's article provoked a larger discussion about global demographic trends between American "conservatives" like Douthat and "liberals" such as The American Prospect's authors Matthew Yglesias and Michelle Goldberg. However, these American pundits quickly changed their topic from Russian demographics to the reasons behind declining birth rates in Europe, Japan and other modern societies all over the world.
In recent weeks, Russia's birth rates and demographics have become a hot topic for discussion in Washington, D.C. and among American pundits. Perhaps it's been a slow news period since the initial warm rhetoric between Washington and Moscow following the election of the new President Barack Obama and the "reset" button his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have promised for U.S.-Russia relations. Russia Blog has been covering the debate over Russia's population and the future of Russian society since June 2005 -- at times, drawing praise from popular scholars such as The New York Times bestselling author and former Sovietologist Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett.
Now we present the San Francisco-based blogger Anatoly Karlin's extensive essay below, which cites Rosstat statistics to claim that the sky is not falling when it comes to the population of Russia, and also puts Russian demographics in the overall context of Europe. Karlin notes that Russian birth rates have actually been slowly increasing since reaching a post-Soviet nadir during the late 1990s. While Russia's mortality rates remain far too high, there are some reasons for cautious optimism about the country's future.
This country is vast and the opportunities here are extraordinary. And if you grew up or lived abroad in the US, the UK, Europe or parts of Asia, where the rules of the game are more or less understandable after centuries of capitalistic trial and error, it's easy to spot new market niches or opportunities here which are still open to rapid development.
This has led me on countless occasions over the years to new investment ideas and exhilarating discussions with business partners - only later to be met with countless frustrations when I've been told, "Great idea, but we can't do that here" or "this would be wonderful, but the laws here forbid us from fixing this problem in this way".
Why? If it can be done elsewhere, why can't it be done here?
What Will I Tell My Children About My Experiences in Russia?
Kendrick White
Kendrick White is an American entrepreneur living and working in Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation. Kendrick's firm, Marchmont Capital Partners, is one of the very few companies publishing business content in English from Russia's regions (that is, the rest of Russia outside Moscow and St. Petersburg). Russia Blog first covered the Marchmont Investment Guide to Russia's regional businesses back in March 2007, when then FINAM investment banker Vladimir F. Kuznetsov posted an article about Kendrick White.
We are proud to announce that blog posts and articles by Kendrick White and other Marchmont Capital authors discussing Russian business issues will now be a regular feature on Russia Blog.
- The Editors
What should I tell my children about my experiences in Russia? That this is a "boom and bust" country of extreme experiences...and emotions?
It's hard to say. So many of my friends--Russians, Americans, Scandinavians, Asians--are having the same experiences in their countries.
"Here we are again, another crisis to deal with!" Most of these friends are pure entrepreneurs, men and women who took the leap of faith in 1991 and 1992...when things were even bleaker than today.
Twitter Madness in Chisinau What Happened in Moldova?
Charles Ganske
Angry youths pelting riot police with stones in the Moldovan capital of Chisinau last week
The former Soviet republic of Moldova is not the kind of place that typically grabs headlines. As many media reports have reminded us in the last two weeks, Moldova is one of the poorest countries in Europe. While plenty of Moldovans have cellular phones, among post-Soviet republics, Moldova is not exactly as wired as say, Estonia.
Given these facts, one would think that the Moldovan capital of Chisinau would be an unlikely place for a revolution fueled by social networking technologies, such as Twitter and Facebook. Yet according to early reports from The New York Times and other Western media outlets, that is supposedly what happened this month, after Moldova's Communist Party won an election that the opposition insists was rigged.
An Open Letter to U.S. Senator John Cornyn on Missile Defense in Europe
Charles Ganske
Dear Senator Cornyn,
I received your email newsletter regarding your position on the issue of missile defense. I agree with my fellow conservatives that protecting our country and allies from missile attacks should be a very high priority. I strongly support continued funding for sea-based and airborne laser systems that can rapidly be deployed to a crisis zone and ground-based lasers to counter the threat posed by terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. I also support continued U.S. bilateral technical cooperation with all nations threatened by rogue missile strikes.
However, I must respectfully disagree with the notion that placing a handful of interceptors in Poland and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic is going to make Europe or America safer. On the contrary, I view this token system as serving more of a political rather than military purpose. The proposed system may very well serve to cement our ties with "New Europe" members that joined NATO during the 1990s. But I also believe that some in Washington would not mind if the system provokes a foolish Russian response that would involve putting offensive missiles in the enclave of Kaliningrad.
The Russian Constitution at Fifteen Discussed in Washington: A Summary, Impressions, and Commentary
W George Krasnow
Boris Yeltsin handing the Russian Constitution to Vladimir Putin on December 31, 1999
The Kennan Institute hosted on March 19, 2009 a day-long international conference, "The Russian Constitution at Fifteen: Assessments and Current Challenges to Russia's Legal Development." The actual anniversary was observed in Russia on December 12, 2008. But there were good reasons to mark it in the U.S. as well. Oleg Rumyantsev, who was the head of the Constitutional Commission's drafting team, had spent a summer of 1990 at the Library of Congress studying the American experience in writing a country's Fundamental Law.
Now, almost two decades later, Mr. Rumyantsev, whom The Washington Post then called "the James Madison of Russia," came back to Washington as president of the Foundation for Constitutional Reform and co-sponsor of this event. Two other sponsors were the International Institute of Global Development (founded by Alexander Lebedev, a wealthy Russian businessman), and the Kennan Institute.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev shaking hands with U.S. President Barack Obama at the G-20 summit in London, United Kingdom on April 1, 2009
The expectations regarding the first face-to-face meeting between Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev and U.S. President Barack Obama are running high. Herein lurks a danger, for few things are worse that broken hopes and disappointments. The issues facing both countries are so daunting, and the accumulated mutual mistrust is so overwhelming, that the chances for dramatic breakthroughs are minimal. However, if common sense prevails, both leaders should be able to reach agreement at least in some critical areas. And nowhere is the situation more critical than in Afghanistan.
Edward and Tatiana Lozansky outside their Russia House restaurant and lounge on Dupont Circle in Washington D.C.
When 18-year-old high school graduate Tatiana Yershova decided to marry the much older Edward Lozansky in 1971, her friends and relatives believed she was making a terrible mistake. The slim, dark-haired and striking Tatiana was the daughter of one of the Soviet Union's highest-ranking generals, who, in 1968, played a key role in crushing the Prague Spring. So her decision to marry a poor Jewish physicist twelve years her senior, with dissident connections and a bad KGB record who had protested that Soviet invasion, was a mystery to those who knew her.
At the Crossroads of Strategic Pipeline Corridors: Settling the Dispute Over Nagorno-Karabakh
Michael Averko
This is the author's updated version of the article that appeared in Global Research on March 31 and Eurasian Home on April 1.
When compared to the other disputed former Soviet territories of Pridnestrovie (also referred to as Transnistria, Transdniestria, Transdnestr and Trans-Dniester), South Ossetia and Abkhazia - Nagorno Karabakh (which Armenians also refer to as Artsakh) often seems to get the least attention. This despite the latter being the bloodiest of these conflicts. Geographically, Nagorno-Karabakh is further away from the European Union nations and the United States than the other mentioned lands. As is true with a number of other conflicts, some find this contested former Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic territory to have murky conditions, in terms of determining which side (Armenian or Azeri) to fully support. Materialistically, fossil fuel rich Azerbaijan is the greater prize. There is also a degree of understandable sympathy for the tragic past of the Armenian people and some expressed apprehension with the human rights situations in Azerbaijan and (to an overall lesser extent) Armenia.
Since last August's war involving the Georgian government's armed attack on South Ossetia, there has been an increase in diplomatic activity among countries considered as key diplomatic parties in the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. In September, the president of Turkey (a country seen as sympathetic to Azerbaijan and historically at odds with Armenia) and his Armenian counterpart met in Yerevan. An optimistic overview was given of that occurrence. The presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia held a November meeting in Moscow, in what was described as upbeat. In February, the Turkish president met his Russian counterpart in Russia. During his stay there, Turkey's president visited the predominately Muslim republic of Tatarstan. The Russo-Turkish meeting further encouraged the growing commercial ties between the two countries.
The Myth of the Yellow Peril: Overhyping Chinese Migration into Russia
Charles Ganske
by Anatoly Karlin
One of the staples of alarmist, pessimistic and/or Russophobic (not to mention Sinophobic) commentary on Russian demography is a reworking of the yellow peril thesis. In these fevered imaginations, Chinese supposedly swim across the Amur River in their millions, establishing village communes in the taiga, and breeding prolifically so as to displace ethnic Russians and revert Khabarovsk and Vladivostok back to their rightful Qing Dynasty-era names, Boli and Haisanwei.
To a limited extent they have a point. Since 1989 the population of the Russian Far East declined by 14% to 6.7 million in 2002; shorn of subsidies from the center, it is now dependent on the rest of East Asia for food and consumer imports. It sits next to Chinese Manchuria (the provinces of Heilongjiang, Liaoning and Jilin), an environmentally-strained rust belt of 108 million souls. Thus it is not surprising to see American geopolitical jockeys, Russian xenophobes and anti-Putin "liberals" alike (i.e. Radio Free Europe's Aleksandr Golts and Echo Moskvi Radio's Yulia Latynina, etc) claiming that a stealth demographic invasion of Russia is well underway which will in a few years result in a Chinese Far East.
A photo allegedly showing then KGB agent Vladimir Putin posing as a tourist in Red Square during President Ronald Reagan's visit to the Soviet Union in 1988. In fact, most Russian analysts believe the man on the left is not Putin, who was living and working in East Germany at the time.
The Parallax Brief blog, maintained by an Englishman working at an investment bank in Moscow, is an interesting read. Judging by the author's blogroll and published comments, his views a mixture of British pro-free market ideas and American liberalism (the Parallax Brief seems sympathetic towards Democrat Barack Obama, or at least willing to give the new U.S. President some slack). However, the PB definitely provides an outsider's perspective on Russia different from what is typically published in the U.S.-UK media.
In particular, this blogger asks a question that would be regarded as anathema among some in Washington D.C. conservative Republican establishment, many of whom still view Moscow as the perpetual seat of the Evil Empire, regardless of how much Russia has actually changed since the collapse of the USSR. Namely, can Russia be described as a conservative country?
Over the past few weeks Washington has witnessed an unusual degree of activity at the official and pundit level aimed at a radical revision of US-Russia relations. Numerous think tanks and NGOs try to outdo one another in holding the most conferences and workshops on "resetting" and in churning out advice for Barack Obama. Not all of this advice is exactly radiating good will and optimism, though most of it is. Still, the anti-Russia lobby does not lose heart, but continues its enthusiastic criticism of the White House, urging Obama not to merely carry on the Bush Administration policies toward Russia, but actually to further toughen it.
After the collapse of Communism and disintegration of the Soviet Union two distinct schools emerged in America in terms of shaping Russia policy. One, which may conveniently be dubbed "Pro", advocated furthering Russia's integration into the West by granting it hefty economic aid to help it switch to market economy and speed up its entry into NATO. The second, by the same token to be named "Contra", continued to look on new Russia as a country that was, at best, no longer capable of swaying geopolitical developments and therefore whose interests could be largely ignored, and at worst, a prospective enemy to be kept in a weakened state and every way "contained."
Russian Movies on Georgia War: Olympus Inferno and War 08/08/08
Charles Ganske
The brief August 2008 war between Georgia and Russia continues to spawn films
Channel One, the same Russian TV network that produced the blockbusters Night Watch and Day Watch has made an action movie about the Georgia War, titled Olympus Inferno. The movie features two main characters, an American entomologist studying butterflies in South Ossetia (you can hear him yelling "What the hell is going on?" a lot in the trailer) and a Russian female journalist. The two characters must work together to get back to Russian lines after getting swept up in the August 8, 2008 Georgian offensive against the separatist enclave of South Ossetia.
In U.S.-Russia Energy Rivalry China is the Big Winner
Charles Ganske
In spite of the recent decline in crude oil prices, Russians are still paying $3 at the pump, nearly twice as much as the average in America. Why?
It's no secret that Russia's oil and gas industry, which accounts for more than half of Russian export revenues and more than a third of Russian GDP, has fallen on hard times lately. In the final quarter of 2008, at the same time that oil prices plunged worldwide, Rosneft, Lukoil and Gazpromneft also lost access to easy credit from Western capital markets. After briefly surpassing Saudi Arabia as the world's no. 1 oil producer in 2006, Russia's oil output has stagnated and declined somewhat in the last two and a half years.
The Russian federal budget, which had previously anticipated prices at $95 a barrel for 2009, now faces a huge shortfall, with current prices hovering around $45 a barrel. The Kremlin had announced plans to cut oil export taxes to spur new exploration and production in an industry that for decades has provided one of its primary sources of revenue, but these badly needed reforms may end up being postponed. Adding insult to injury for ordinary Russians, drivers across Russia are still paying over $3 a gallon at the gas pump, in spite of the collapse in crude oil prices.
My last American Chronicle article ("Update on the Former Moldavian SSR Dispute," Dec. 31) on the meeting between the leaders of Moldova and Pridnestrovie (also referred to as Transnistria, Transdniestria, Transdnestr and Trans-Dniester) relates to the issue of how to successfully resolve the dispute between the two parties. A major stumbling block is Pridnestrovie's government refusing to accept the Moldovan government's position that Moldova's territory includes all land which comprised the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR).
Theoretically, there is a way to honor Pridnestrovie's stance, in a settlement that would unite the two parties. Rather than advocate Pridnestrovie acknowledging itself as part of Moldova, a constitutionally loose union state of two republics can be proposed. Its name could be along the lines of the Union of Moldova and Pridnestrovie.
There Are More Ways than One to Hit the Reset Button
Edward Lozansky
"We worked hard to get the right Russian word," Clinton told Lavrov, "do you think we got it?"
"You got it wrong," answered Lavrov. "This says 'peregruzka,' which means overcharged."
It must have come as a pleasant surprise to Vice President Joe Biden's speechwriter that his phrase about the need to "hit the reset button" in Moscow-Washington relations suddenly became popular and endlessly quoted by both pro- and anti-revisionists of U.S.-Russia relations. In any case Russia should obviously thank its lucky stars for Obama's electoral victory, for had he lost, the chances of improving these relations would have been very slim indeed -- things would most likely go from bad to worse.
Obama is clearly sending out positive signals, yet Moscow, regrettably, has so far refrained from offering to meet him halfway, producing little except rhetoric about its readiness to try new foreign policy approaches. Moreover, according to numerous political analysts, the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has already made two mistakes that baffle everyone favoring the two countries' rapprochement.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with the famous "reset" button. In light of the Cold War MAD connotations of "The Button", should it have been red? Or even a button at all?
Did you know that if you translate "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" into Russian, it becomes "the vodka is agreeable but the meat has gone bad"? Literal translations can be tricky that way.
It seems that no translators were harmed in the manufacturing of Hillary Clinton's "reset" button, which she presented to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva on Friday.
"We worked hard to get the right Russian word," Clinton addressed Lavrov in a deliberately slow voice, as if talking to a special-needs child. "Do you think we got it?"
"You got it wrong," Lavrov answered in fluent English. "This says 'peregruzka,' which means overcharged."
Well, it looks like somebody used a cheap electronic translation program. But it could be worse. I once came across a website that advertised its automated translation service with an example of a label from a jar of pickles, informing Russian consumers that it contained condoms.
Talk about food safety! That's what you get when you translate "preservatives" without as much as a human touch.
A Russian soldier making the sign of the cross before an icon. Russia's largely conscript army is being slashed to make way for a cheaper and smaller military.
Continuing Russia Blog's recent run of posts about Austin-based commentators and personalities, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel Austin Bay (an ocassional guest professor at my alma mater of the University of Texas at Austin) has an excellent post over at his Strategy Page website about the recently announced cutbacks in Russia's military budget. The notion that Russia is engaged in a military buildup to challenge the West, which was popularized last year during the brief war between Russia and Georgia, has taken a hard hit from the realities of the global economic meltdown. The Kremlin is trying to patch huge holes in the Russian federal budget left by the collapse of world crude oil prices from $95 per barrel to less than $40 a barrel.
Russia and China's Financial Warning to the West Is Anyone in Washington Listening?
Charles Ganske
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin meeting Chinese Premier Wen Jinbao in October 2008 (Photo by: Xinhua). Both governments are worried about the value of their dollar-denominated assets holding up during Washington's upcoming spending binge
The Western media have said plenty about Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's remarks at Davos, Switzerland last January 28. Some observers claimed that Putin chose to blame capitalism for today's economic woes. Others, such as former U.S. President Bill Clinton, believe Putin offered an "endorsement of private enterprise" instead of more government intervention to bail out the sagging global economy.
Putin, however, was not attacking capitalism, but the haphazard series of Western government bailouts and interventions that have made it very hard to predict when global financial markets will stabilize. It is not clear to foreigners which American financial companies like Bank of America and Citigroup will be nationalized as "too big to fail" and which ones will be allowed to slide into bankruptcy, as did Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.
Working Together in the Land of the Unruly U.S.-Russian Quid Pro Quo on Afghanistan
Charles Ganske
Kyrgyzstan is officially expelling U.S. forces from the Manas Air Base -- so now what?
Nikolas K. Gvosdev is a professor at the U.S. Naval War College and the editor of The Washington Realist foreign policy blog. Gvosdev is also, when it comes to Russia, probably not the most popular guy in Washington, particularly when he reminds his fellow Washingtonians about the limits of American power worldwide and the checks on the extent of U.S. influence in the former Soviet Union. Gvosdev has long been skeptical of efforts to create democracy overnight in former Soviet republics like Ukraine and Georgia through so-called "Color Revolutions" that took place earlier this decade with strong American government and NGO support.
Here at Russia Blog, we've frequently published Prof. Gvosdev's articles in the last two years. Gvosdev's latest article offers suggestions on how the Obama Administration can cooperate with Moscow to secure NATO's logistical lifeline through Central Asia into Afghanistan. While some observers may believe that Russia is taking unfair advantage of America's predicament in Afghanistan, demanding concessions from Washington in return for NATO access to Russian and former Soviet territory, the fact is nothing in international relations comes for free. And the phrase "trust but verify", so beloved by fans of the late President Ronald Reagan, actually came from Russia. The Kremlin is now testing U.S. intentions in Central Asia to see if fighting the Taliban and jihadism really are the highest American priorities in the region, or if other zero-sum agendas are still ongoing twenty years after the Cold War was officially declared over.
Why Kyrgyzstan is Kicking the U.S. Out Why the U.S. and Russia Need to Make a Deal
Charles Ganske
A U.S. Air Force C-17 transport plane in the snow at Manas Air Base, 2006
The Swiss International Relations and Security Network (ISN) website, a project of the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland, has published an interesting take on why the U.S. is losing access to a strategic military base at Manas in Kyrgyzstan. While Switzerland has long enjoyed a reputation for a detached, if not always completely neutral view of international affairs, the author in this case is actually an American, Dr John C.K. Daly, a Washington D.C.-based consultant and an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute.
Dr. Daly writes that Washington hawks who want to blame the Kremlin for the U.S. getting booted out of the Kyrgyz base that has been critical to ongoing American military operations in Afghanistan since December 2001 have no one to blame but themselves. Dr. Daly adds that Washington should understand that the Kremlin no longer believes that the U.S. has the political will to stay in Afghanistan long-term and defeat the Taliban. Therefore Russia is making every effort to prop up its authoritarian friends in former Soviet Central Asia with economic aid, lest they too fall victim to the Taliban exporting heroin and jihad into their countries in the years to come.
How Did Russia Rebuild Itself? Sorry, But You're Wrong
Charles Ganske
Myth: Russia is only about oil and gas. Fact: Russia has begun to diversify its economy The present economic crisis and collapse of energy prices give Russia more opportunity for diversification
Princeton University history professor Stephen Kotkin recently released a paperback edition of his book, Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000 with an addendum covering the last eight years in Russia. Writing over at the Russia: Other Points of View forum, Prof. Kotkin notes that the Western media often fixates on Russian leaders like Vladimir Putin and Cold War-style Kremlinology, to the detriment of reporting on changing economic and social conditions for ordinary Russians. Only in the last two and a half years, for example, has the Western media widely reported that middle class Russians are buying many of the same things that middle class Westerners once commonly took for granted, such as new cars, apartments, and vacation packages abroad.
Click on the extended post to read Prof. Kotkin's article.
The latest Russo-Ukrainian gas spat may have finally taught the elites in those two countries a vital lesson. Namely, that they stand to gain far more from acting in concert, than either one of them gains from acting against the interest of the other.
The latest statement by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso that "Europeans" will not forget how Ukrainian and Russian leaders acted during this crisis, reveals more than just impotence. It serves as a reminder that many Western Europeans are still not ready to accept either Ukraine or Russia as part of Europe. It would be wise for both Russian and Ukrainians not to lose sight of this fact, for it both shapes and constrains the policies of European Union towards them.
At the outset of this latest spat, both Ukrainian and Russia political elites made the mistake of assuming that EU leaders cared about the issues. They therefore put all their efforts into making their case in the media, instead of undertaking direct negotiations. Ukrainian leaders hoped to mobilise western sympathy by portraying their country as a victim of Russian imperialism, while Russian leaders sought to portray the Ukrainians as thieves. Each then tried to involve their Western European partners more directly, urging the European Commission to send monitors to the pumping stations, inviting the parties to a gas summit, and floating schemes by which European intermediaries might step in to guarantee payments in the event of further payment arrears.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in front of a banner for Gazprom, Russia's state-owned natural gas export monopoly
As of yesterday, January 17, 2009, the gas crisis was not over yet, and contrary to some optimistic expectations, it may actually continue for a long time, perhaps in a less severe but still damaging way to all parties of the conflict -- Russia, Ukraine, and the European Union. This will add additional pain to the current global economic and financial crisis, so we should be ready for the worst. However, despite all negative consequences, each crisis provides an opportunity to soberly evaluate the situation, draw proper conclusions, learn new lessons, think of the new strategies and tactics, and apply a new course of actions.
Unfortunately, the September 11 crisis, despite some encouraging steps at the beginning, did not produce too much in the long term East--West cooperation agenda. Will the current crisis generate better results? No one knows for sure, but nothing will happen unless we try, and here is some of my humble advice to the powers that be.
Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin
Russia Blog contributor Professor Andrei P. Tsygankov sends along his latest article, published in the Asia Times newspaper. Prof. Tsygankov writes that although Russia is justified in seeking higher prices from countries like Ukraine that have based much of their recent economic growth on cheap subsidized Russian gas, the Kremlin has pinned far too much of its hopes for future development on the oil and gas industry.
While this type of criticism is quite commonplace in the West, Tsygankov, like his fellow Asia Times contributor "Spengler", realizes that the time is short. If Russia (and for that matter, Ukraine and Georgia, which are in even worse demographic shape) want to turn things around and avoid their societies being cut in half, they have to do it within a generation.
Click on the extended post to read this excellent Asia Times article.
In Aftermath of Georgia War, a More Stable Caucasus
Charles Ganske
A Russian soldier in Georgia in 2008 All quiet on the Caucases front: Emil Sanamyan writes that since the defeat of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili's effort to reunify South Ossetia by force, other former Soviet republics have indicated a willingness to settle their secessionist conflicts through negotiations rather than violence
World Politics Review, an online magazine based in Washington, D.C., has a new format and several contributors offering perspectives outside of the typical U.S. editorial page fare when it comes to Russia and other parts of the world. Emil Sanamyan is the Washington editor and bureau chief of the Armenian Reporter and he writes that in the aftermath of the August 2008 war between Russia and Georgia, the violatile Caucases region has actually become more quiet.
In particular, Mr. Sanamyan writes about signs that the long simmering conflict between majority Muslim Azerbaijan and historically Christian Armenia over the territory of Ngorno-Karabkh may be moving towards a peaceful settlement. And with little acclaim from analysts in the West, Moscow is acting as a peace broker between the two sides. Russia has long had friendly relations with both Armenia and Azerbaijan and both countries have extensive ethnic and immigrant diasporas in the Russian Federation.
Pipeline Politics: How Georgia Influences Israel and Iran
Charles Ganske
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. In spite of the hype pushed by some conspiracy theorists, Israel only supplied Georgia with a tiny fraction of its military equipment and suspended all arms sales months before the August 2008 war
Since the August 2008 war between Russia and Georgia, many geopolitical analysts have tried to understand the origins of the conflict, and explain both U.S. support for the Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and Russian support for his opponents, the separatist governments of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In doing so, geopolitical thinkers around the world have sought explanations for the conflict that go beyond the personalities of the individual leaders involved, such as the Russian President Dimitry Medvedev, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, and the Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.
Muscovites celebrating the New Year near the Kremlin on January 1, 2008
During this time of year, it's traditional, in Russia as in the West, to take stock of the previous year and to make resolutions for changes in the upcoming year. Yuri Mamchur, Russia Blog's creator and main editor, has published a retrospective in the Seattle Times this week (scroll down on the main page or click on this link to see Yuri's article) on how Russia could have been better prepared to face the current global economic crisis. Addressing the same topic, Professor Andrei Tsygankov from San Francisco State University in California has sent us a panel discussion he participated in with other experts for the magazine Russia Profile.
Eight years after President Boris Yeltsin gave up the presidential suite, Russian economic legislation had matured, but the economy hadn't. Russia doesn't have much to show for its meteoritic economic rise and fall. But it could have been avoided if Russia had not missed important opportunities, from infrastructure investment to small business loans.
THE Russian government and people, awash with money, were convinced their economy was invulnerable to the world financial crisis. By September, Russia's gold reserves stood at $581 billion. The federal budget seemed strong, salaries high, economic reforms successful and government investments wise. In hindsight, it was all too noticeably "Potemkin" and vulnerable. When foreign markets crashed and oil prices fell, Russia's financial standing changed overnight.
Paul Weyrich possessed the unrivaled ability to take public stands on behalf of his (and our) core principles, even when doing so created a breach with the conventional wisdom that reigned inside Washington at any given moment. Personal relationships with Washington's power brokers (and he knew them all, because they all quietly and respectfully sought his counsel) were irrelevant if the broker in question was contemplating a policy that violated one of his core tenets. He would patiently explain his point of view, counsel adherence to a timeless principle over a strategic feint that might (but usually didn't) yield some transitory political advantage, and then go public with his principled view if the quiet conversation proved fruitless.
Besides taking strong positions on moral, human life, and family issues, Weyrich was not afraid to criticize what he saw as misguided foreign policies, particularly those advocated by his fellow conservatives and within the Republican Party. Whereas others simply accepted the expansion of NATO into the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Ukraine as a given, Weyrich pressed the hard question to his fellow conservatives of whether these steps would actually advance the cause of freedom worldwide, or if they would needlessly antagonize Russia without making America or Europe the slightest bit more secure.
For the sake of educating the public and press about what Weyrich believed and advocated, Russia Blog has republished two of his final op-eds about the future of U.S.-Russia relations.
Click on the extended post to read Weyrich's op-eds from December 2 and August 20, 2008
In the 1700-s British King George III called George Washington "The greatest man in the world." American history is taught well in Russian public schools, but probably wasn't delivered as well during the Soviet times when Vladimir Putin was a boy. Had Putin looked into the history books, he would've found out that he had given up the opportunity to become the Greatest Man in Russia's history. In fact, he lined himself up to become one of the less impressive men in history, one whose personal hobbies and views, combined with age and historically long terms at the steering wheel (surpassing even Stalin) may lead to some results other than a free market economy...
Two weeks ago, a member of parliament from Putin's party United Russia got drunk (as in smashed) and took his Porche Cayanne for a ride, killing a 23-year-old student, an only provider for his disabled parents...
"Manual control" has become an 
Under Luzhkov, Moscow turned from a grey communist city of the past into the most expensive and trendy city in the world. Moscow's economy improved, large construction projects in the city, including the building of a new financial district, took place, and Moscow's skyline transformed into a crossover of Paris and Dubai. Having visited most of the European and American cities over the past two years I am making a statement: Moscow became the world's cleanest Western capital. At the same time, Luzhkov was accused of corruption, bulldozing historic buildings, and poor handling of traffic, as well as the city's smog crisis during the 2010 Russian wildfires. On September 28, 2010, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev removed Luzhkov from his position for the "loss of trust."
[Note: This is Part 2 of Krasnow's tribute to Joe Sobran. In Part 1, he described his personal acquaintance with Joe. Here he pays tribute in the context of ongoing ideological struggle for the hearts and minds of American people.]
An American friend wrote to me about the current Russian spy scandal in America: "
On June 12, 1918, Grand Duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich (henceforth Michael) and his secretary Brian Johnson, a Brit, were randomly executed in the outskirts of the far away city of Perm in the Ural Mountains. A year ago, Russia "rehabilitated" both, along with other Romanov-related victims of Soviet repression. The decision followed a similar act about Tsar Nicholas II and his family on October 1, 2008.
Back in 1974 Senator Henry (Scoop) Jackson and Representative Charles Vanik introduced an amendment to a trade law with the purpose of punishing the Soviet Union and other communist countries for the denial of emigration rights to their citizens. At the time it was a justified decision, but in case someone forgot the evil empire has been gone since 1991. Unfortunately, for one of its former parts which never had any emigration restrictions, the Russian Federation, the Jackson-Vanik amendment remains in force. Strictly speaking, the amendment has been a dead letter since 1994 due to a ritual of annual Presidential waivers based on humiliating compliance reviews. Yet it continues to be a constant irritant in U.S.-Russia relations, and therefore should be repealed for good without further delay. It is easier said than done as both the Clinton and Bush administrations tried to get rid of this amendment but failed miserably since the U.S. Congress has the authority to act and refuses to go along.
This publication tries to debunk some popular, but misguided, views on demographic trends in today's Russia. These consist of the perception that Russia is in a demographic "death spiral" that dooms it to national decline (
