The Global Intelligence Files,
files released so far...
2203
The Global Intelligence Files

### Index pages

List of Releases

### by Date of Document

unspecified
2001
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011

### by Date of Release

2001-03-13
2010-03-10
2011-03-05
2011-03-15
2012-01-29
2012-02-27
2012-02-28
2012-02-29
2012-03-01
2012-03-02
2012-03-03
2012-03-04
2012-03-05
2012-03-06
2012-03-07
2012-03-08
2012-03-09
2012-03-10
2012-03-11
2012-03-12
2012-03-13
2012-03-14
2012-03-15
2012-03-16
2012-03-17
2012-03-19
2012-03-20
2012-03-23
2012-03-25
2012-03-26
2012-03-27
2012-04-01
2012-04-02
2012-04-24
2012-04-26
2012-04-30
2012-05-10
2012-06-18
2012-06-20
2012-07-01
2012-07-24
2012-07-28
2012-07-29
2012-07-30
2012-07-31
2012-08-01
2012-08-02
2012-08-05
2012-08-06
2012-08-07
2012-08-08
2012-08-09
2012-08-10
2012-08-11
2012-08-12
2012-08-13
2012-08-14
2012-08-15
2012-08-16
2012-08-17
2012-08-18
2012-08-19
2012-08-20
2012-08-21
2012-08-22
2012-08-23
2012-08-24
2012-08-25
2012-08-26
2012-08-27
2012-08-29
2012-08-30
2012-08-31
2012-09-01

### Our Partners

ABC Color - Paraguay
Al Akhbar - Lebanon
Al Masry Al Youm - Egypt
Asia Sentinel - Hong Kong
Bivol - Bulgaria
Carta Capital - Brazil
CIPER - Chile
Dawn Media - Pakistan
L'Espresso - Italy
La Repubblica - Italy
La Jornada - Mexico
La Nacion - Costa Rica
Malaysia Today - Malaysia
McClatchy - United States
Nawaat - Tunisia
NDR/ARD - Germany
Owni - France
Pagina 12 - Argentina
Philip Dorling - Fairfax media contributor - Australia
Plaza Publica - Guatemala
Publica - Brazil
Publico.es - Spain
Rolling Stone - United States
Russian Reporter - Russia
Ta Nea - Greece
Taraf - Turkey
The Hindu - India
The Yes Men - Bhopal Activists
Sunday Star-Times - New Zealand

### Community resources

Supporters Support Wikileaks Follow us on Twitter Twitter this Follow us on Facebook

courage is contagious

# The Global Intelligence Files

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor's web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.

## [OS] 2010-#56-Johnson's Russia List

Released on 2012-08-27 00:00 GMT

Email-ID | 323818
Date | 2010-03-22 15:43:13
From | davidjohnson@starpower.net
To | os@stratfor.com
List-Name | os@stratfor.com

Having trouble viewing this email? Click here
Johnson's Russia List
2010-#56
22 March 2010
davidjohnson@starpower.net
A World Security Institute Project
www.worldsecurityinstitute.org
JRL homepage: www.cdi.org/russia/johnson
Constant Contact JRL archive:
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs053/1102820649387/archive/1102911694293.html
Support JRL: http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/funding.cfm
Your source for news and analysis since 1996n0
In this issue
NOTABLE
1. Moscow TImes: Rallies Calling for Putin's Ouster Fizzle.
2. New York Times: Russian Protests Seeking Ouster of Putin Fall Short.
3. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: Sergei Rogov, RELOAD JAMMED? The Russian-American reload
is compromised, and strategic stability with it.
4. ITAR-TASS: Chief Statistician Becomes Blogger To Spread Statistic Data.
5. Business New Europe: Ben Aris, Russia to spend more on education than defence.
6. ITAR-TASS: Ex-Soviet Leader Presents New Book. (Gorbachev)
7. ITAR-TASS: International Congress On Russian Language To Open In Moscow.
POLITICS
8. Interfax: Almost 30 per cent of Russians ready to take part in protests -
poll.
9. Kommersant: OVERCAST DAY OF WRATH. Political scientists: The opposition
overestimates its potential. The authorities should stop pinning the blame on
external subversive activities.
10. Profil: FINE-TUNING THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. The judicial reform in Russia: its
current status and prospects for the future.
11. Gazeta: IDEOLOGY FOR POLICE. The Public House presented its concept of
reorganization of the police.
12. Moscow Times: Gryzlov Says Putin-Medvedev Tandem to Rule After 2012.
13. Deutsche Welle: Medvedev, Putin grapple for power in Moscow.
14. Moscow Times: Vladimir Frolov, A Medvedev Tea Party Could Be the Answer.
15. Svobodnaya Pressa: Lev Ivanov, Medvedev Is Ready To Govern Alone.
16. BBC Monitoring: Russian radio pundit comments on Iran, regional elections,
protests, Georgia. (Yuliya Latynina)
17. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: Editorial Questions Status of Academy of Sciences.
18. Gazeta.ru: Science, Church Divided More by Money than Ideology.
19. Interfax: 'No grounds for concern' over racist attacks in Russia - migration
service.
20. RIA Novosti: Moscow authorities create map of ethnic tension sites.
21. New York Times: With Breakdown of Order in Russia's Dagestan Region, Fear
Stalks Police.
ECONOMY
22. ITAR-TASS: Unemployment Topical In Russia Again - Poll.
23. ITAR-TASS: Russia Silicon Valley should be run not by official but big
businessman. (Vladislav Surkov)
24. ITAR-TASS: Russia Should Have Several Such Projects As Skolkovo Centre.
25. www.russiatoday.com: Innovative economy needs business culture overhaul.
26. Izvestia: Yukos is dead, but its debt lives on.
27. RIA Novosti: First Nord Stream pipelay vessel heads for Baltic.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
28. ITAR-TASS: Putin Calls For Passing From Words To Deeds At Meeting With
Clinton - Official.
29. ITAR-TASS: Russian Companies Need To Know They Are Welcome To US Market -
Putin.
30. Interfax: Russia May Reduce Its Nuclear Potential - Expert. (Alexei Arbatov)
31. Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozrenie: THE RUSSIA-NATO STRATEGY: LEARNING TO
JOINTLY WORK AND LOOK TO THE FUTURE.
32. Interfax: U.S. Dominates Global Arms Trade; Russia's Share Shrinking -
Expert.
33. Washington Post editorial: Has President Obama outwaited Russia on nuclear
control?
34. RIA Novosti: Ukraine's new leadership seeks new gas deal with Moscow.
35. Progress (UK): Andrew Wilson, Yanukovych/Nixon.
36. The Guardian: Salome Zourabichvili, The Imedi TV hoax makes one thing clear:
Georgia's president is out of control.
LONG ITEM
37. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: Russia's Liberals Have To Make Their Voice Heard, Take a
Stand. Interview with Igor Yurgens.
#1
Moscow TImes
March 22, 2010
Rallies Calling for Putin's Ouster Fizzle
By Alexandra Odynova
About 20,000 protesters denounced government policies and called for Prime
Minister Vladimir Putin to resign at dozens of rallies over the weekend,
organizers said Sunday, far less than the tens of thousands of people they had
hoped to attract.
Opposition groups had hoped for a large turnout that would increase the pressure
on the government after they attracted 12,000 people to a Kaliningrad rally in
January that rattled the federal authorities.
But only small crowds showed up for Saturday's so-called "Day of Wrath" protests
in about 50 cities, stretching from Kaliningrad on Russia's westernmost edge to
Vladivostok on the Pacific coast.
In Kaliningrad, about 5,000 people held tangerines in outstretched hands,
chanting for Kremlin-appointed Governor Georgy Boos and Putin to resign,
Solidarity leader Vladimir Milov said. Protesters chose tangerines instead of
posters to prevent a police crackdown on the unsanctioned rally, he said. The
tangerines also symbolized Boos, and protesters were supposed to crush them
afterward.
YouTube footage of the rally showed some protesters wearing facemasks to
symbolize a lack of freedom of speech.
Local authorities, who had authorized the January rally, refused to grant
permission for Saturday's protest, citing a scheduled agriculture fair. But
police officers made no effort to break up the event.
Pls for the protest prompted Boos to hold talks last week with a local opposition
leader, Konstantin Doroshok, who heads Solidarity's Kaliningrad branch. Boos
agreed to hold a televised call-in show to answer residents' questions, and
Doroshok promised to cancel Saturday's demonstration.
The call-in show was held Saturday and lasted about four hours. But Solidarity's
main office said the rally would be held because Doroshok had made the promise
without its approval.
Solidarity leaders Milov and Alexander Rylkin flew to Kaliningrad to take part in
the protest but were detained on arrival on suspicion of robbery, Milov wrote in
his LiveJournal blog Sunday. The two were released before the rally.
"We were assured that the rebellious spirit is still strong in the city," Milov
said.
In Moscow, several hundred people gathered for an unsanctioned protest on Pushkin
Square that was broken up by police. About 60 people were detained, the
opposition said.
Larger protests were held in Vladivostok and Irkutsk.
More than 2,000 people showed up for the rally in Vladivostok, which local
authorities initially banned but later authorized, Solidarity said in a
statement.
A similar number of people rallied in Irkutsk, where United Russia mayoral
candidate Sergei Serebrennikov lost to Viktor Kondrashov, who was nominated by
the Communist Party, in March 14 elections. Many of the protesters decried
Putin's approval of the reopening of the region's Baikalsk Paper and Pulp Mills,
which will dump waste into Lake Baikal, the world's largest freshwater lake.
Six people were detained, local news agencies reported.
The federal government and the main television channels, which are all
state-controlled, ignored the rallies.
The Interior Ministry said ahead of the rallies that it would deploy 5,000 police
officers nationwide to oversee them.
State Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov said Friday that the rallies were funded by
unspecified foreign powers. He said the money was being channeled through
nongovernmental organizations and being used to pay people to participate in the
rallies.
"Here we get the taste of a color revolution," he said in an online interview
with Gazeta.ru, referring to the nonviolent public protests that led to regime
changes in Georgia in 2003 and in Ukraine in 2004.
Putin and other senior government officials have made similar claims in the past
and heralded legislation through the Duma aimed at preventing NGOs from using
foreign funds for political purposes.
Gryzlov on Friday also acknowledged that people were upset about increasing costs
for housing and public utilities.
A recent poll by the Public Opinion Foundation indicated that about 30 percent of
Russians were ready to take to the streets to protest.
Alexei Titkov, a regions analyst at the Institute of Regional Politics, suggested
that the weekend protests might have failed to match organizers' expectations
because people had just had a chance to show their discontent at regional
elections March 14.
"This could be a lull after last week's elections, when those with a desire to
express their disagreement could go to the polls," Titkov said.
United Russia swept the elections but lost several constituencies, including the
mayoral seat in Irkutsk. In the last regional elections, in October, United
Russia won every constituency, triggering widespread complaints of fraud,
including by the Communists, the Liberal Democratic Party and A Just Russia.
While the Communists participated in the weekend protests, the Liberal Democratic
Party and A Just Russia did not.
Meanwhile, the Other Russia opposition group will stage an anti-government rally
in Moscow on March 31, even if the authorities ban it again, leader Eduard
Limonov said.
Opposition and human rights groups have tried to hold rallies on the 31st of each
month to call for freedom of assembly as provided by the 31st Article of the
Constitution. Moscow authorities have never authorized the rallies.
[return to Contents]
#2
New York Times
March 21, 2010
Russian Protests Seeking Ouster of Putin Fall Short
By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ and CLIFFORD J. LEVY
KALININGRAD, Russia Russians held relatively small demonstrations across the
country on Saturday to call for the ouster of Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin,
seeking to mobilize discontent over a faltering economy, rising prices and
government officials perceived as unresponsive to average people.
Organizers, after weeks of appealing for support for a "Day of Anger," had hoped
to bring out tens of thousands of protesters from Vladivostok on the Pacific
coast all the way to Kaliningrad, here on the Baltic Sea. But turnout fell short
of their predictions.
"This country is one of the richest in the world, and people here live in
poverty," said Nikolai Gritsayev, 41, a government worker in Kaliningrad who was
one of several hundred people to turn out here. He said his salary had been
sharply cut recently.
The Kremlin clamped down by using security services to put pressure on opposition
groups and by offering minor concessions. In several cities, including
Kaliningrad and Moscow, the authorities refused to allow protests in central
locations, though people still tried.
State media gave little or no attention, and the Kremlin publicly ignored the
protests. Two mainstream opposition parties, considered to be under Kremlin
control, did not take part.
Russia has fared poorly in the financial crisis, and polls show that people are
worried about unemployment and their ability to make ends meet. Even so, it does
not appear that there is widespread backing for the ouster of Mr. Putin and his
protege, President Dmitri A. Medvedev. They remain somewhat insulated as
dissatisfaction has focused on regional officials, who are typically appointed by
the Kremlin.
Mr. Putin's governing political party dominated regional elections this month,
though it did suffer setbacks that could indicate displeasure on the economy.
Here in Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave between Lithuania and Poland that is
geographically separate from the rest of the country, organizers had wanted to
repeat their success of late January, when they amassed several thousand people
in a protest against tax increases, cuts in social programs and utility costs.
The January demonstration in Kaliningrad seemed to surprise the Kremlin and
regional leadership. The turnout suggested it might set off a nationwide
antigovernment movement.
But opposition groups here have since fragmented, and a prominent one,
Solidarity, canceled the Kaliningrad protest, saying that it feared violence.
Still, several hundred people gathered on a rain-soaked central square and
demanded the resignation of the regional governor, Grigory Boos, who was
appointed by the Kremlin.
"The authorities are scared of real protests," said Svetlana Pogorelskaya, an
opposition leader. "But there will be more protests and they will be larger and
more intense. Here in Kaliningrad, we live in Europe. We are Europeans. Why
should we live like slaves?"
Unlike in other cities, the police in Kaliningrad did not try to disperse or
arrest protesters.
But at a news conference on Saturday afternoon, Mr. Boos accused protesters of
refusing to meet for "substantive talks."
"When your feelings are manifested in such a public way, it says something about
how cultured someone is," he said.
In Moscow, city officials did not permit a coalition of opposition groups to
conduct a demonstration on Pushkin Square, a central intersection. As is often
the case, the groups announced that they would hold it anyway.
Only a few hundred protesters turned out, and they were greeted by numerous
police officers and journalists.
"We are doing this in accordance with the law," said Sergey Udaltsov, a protest
leader. "We do not fear anything. According to the Constitution, we have the
right to be here to carry out our protest. Anything else is a gross violation. We
appeal to the police to not prevent our march from occurring."
Mr. Udaltsov then tried to enter a section of the square that was blocked by
police officers, who immediately detained him, dragging him to a police bus. His
colleagues shouted, "Shame!"
Others soon followed. The police arrested a few dozen people before the rally
dispersed.
Michael Schwirtz reported from Kaliningrad, Russia, and Clifford J. Levy from
Moscow.
[return to Contents]
#3
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
March 22, 2010
RELOAD JAMMED?
The Russian-American reload is compromised, and strategic stability with it
Author: Sergei Rogov
ABSENCE OF THE START FOLLOW-ON AGREEMENT IMPAIRS PROGRESS IN THE RUSSIAN-U.S.
RELATIONS
Political will of Russian and American leaders is desperately
needed at this time to have the negotiations in Geneva brought to
their logical conclusion. Signing of the START follow-on agreement
in the nearby future will have a healing effect on the bilateral
Russian-U.S. relations and on the international atmosphere in
general. It will encourage other nuclear powers to join the
disarmament process. It will advance nonproliferation.
U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton's visit to Moscow became
the last attempt to save the reload in the bilateral relations
proclaimed a year ago. Dialogue between Russia and the United
States was restored, tone of statements became less hostile, but
that was essentially all. Reload or not, trade and economic
relations between the two countries worsened.
Moscow and Washington failed to reach an agreement on the
START follow-on agreement despite lengthy and intensive
consultations. Information is scarce but the impression is that
the two countries successfully negotiated the number of warheads
and delivery vehicles to be permitted each signatory.
Unfortunately, control and verification mechanisms proved to be a
formidable barrier defying all attempts to scale it. That, and the
link between strategic offensive and defensive arms.
Absence of the Russian-American START follow-on agreement
impairs progress in other spheres. Enemies of the document and the
rapprochement it stands for in the meantime grew active again.
They are trying to circumvent the signing altogether. Balked at
every turn by the Republican Party, Barack Obama is losing
popularity and that does not help things in general either. The
Democratic Party is facing the threat of defeat in the preliminary
election come autumn. By and large, the Democratic Party is in
disarray. Endorsement of the health care reforms by the House of
Representatives is probably the only development that might enable
Obama to turn the tables.
As matters stand, however, prospects of ratification of the
START follow-on agreement by the U.S. Senate (provided the
document is signed, of course) remain bleak. The qualified
majority at this point requires 67 votes i.e. 8 Republican votes
(the Republicans have 41 seat on the Senate of 100). If
ratification is postponed for a year, it will then require votes
of 12-15 Republicans which is essentially an impossibility. The
Republicans in Senate drive a hard bargain demanding development
of new weapons and abolition of all and any restrictions on
ballistic missile defense.
Not even Obama's Administration itself is immune to discord.
Adoption of the new nuclear doctrine is postponed again and again,
each time due to quarrels between the White House and the
Pentagon. The U.S. Army is quite skeptical of Obama's disarmament
plans.
Last but not the least, the decision to install elements of
the ballistic missile system in Romania and Bulgaria made despite
Russia strengthened Moscow's suspicions regarding Washington's
true intents. Considering that the United States withdrew from the
ABM Treaty in 2002, these suspicions are warranted.
It is fair to add that the START follow-on agreement has
enemies in Russia too. Some media outlets launched a hysterical
campaign against what they called unilateral disarmament.
Analogous statements are made in the Duma every now and then. Hard
facts of life are displaced with military-technical SF and hurrah-
patriotic slogans.
Russian enemies of the START follow-on agreement never miss a
chance to elaborate on Washington's ABM plans but all too
frequently fail to acknowledge a difference between strategic and
theater ballistic missile defense systems. In the meantime, the
SM-3 missiles the Americans want in Romania and Bulgaria pose no
threats to Russian ICBMs - unlike the GBIs Bush intended for
Poland once. Bush's successor scrapped these plans and some other
strategic ABM programs as well.
The START I expired on December 5 last year and left in its
place a a vacuum in mutual arms control Moscow and Washington had
not known in four decades. International nuclear security
conference is scheduled for April 12. International conference on
the Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty will take place in
May. Are the United States and Russia prepared to attend them
empty-handed, with nothing to show the rest of the world? Failure
to sign the START follow-on agreement in a matter of weeks will
compromise all of the strategic arms reduction and
nonproliferation regime.
Some experts fear that the world is about to encounter utter
collapse of the arms control mechanism (agreements on ballistic
missile defense, strategic arms reduction, Soviet-American Treaty
on Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range
Missiles, Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, and Nuclear
Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty). This mechanism became the basis
of strategic stability in the years when the world was split into
two camps. Washington's insistence on a monopolar world has
weakened arms control significantly. The world is becoming
multipolar again, hence the necessity to strengthen strategic
stability. It will never happen though if the regime of Russian-
U.S. treaties is ruined. Permitting the "window of opportunities"
the late 20th century opened to shut itself, we are begging for
trouble - another period of multipolar chaos like in the early
20th century.
[return to Contents]
#4
Chief Statistician Becomes Blogger To Spread Statistic Data
MOSCOW, March 19 (Itar-Tass) -- Head of the Federal State Statistic Service
Alexander Surinov has become a blogger "to spread interesting statistic data, to
post important messages and to discuss problems and tasks of his service with the
audience," a service source told Itar-Tass.
"My primary target is to show the readers that it is interesting to collect
statistic information," Surinov said in his introductory message. "This work
requires great concentration but it is necessary not only for those into social
sciences, but also for politicians and businessmen."
"The blog may also be interesting to travelers," said Surinov, who had made
plenty of business trips. "Sometimes I have to visit places I have never heard
about."
The main subject of the new blogger is the upcoming population census in Russia.
More than 650,000 census takers will participate in the Russian population census
of October 14-25, Surinov said.
Professors and students will become census takers, he noted. "The Federal State
Statistic Service is holding negotiations with the Education and Science
Ministry," he said.
Surinov called for being economical with population census funds, which would
amount to 10.5 billion rubles. "We have to be economical because of the crisis.
We need to fit this budget," he said.
In addition, the federal service is negotiating assistance to the population
census with heads of twelve religions. Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia Kirill
has blessed the census, Surinov said.
"The legal basis of the population census is almost laid down," head of the
Federal State Statistic Service's population and health statistics department
Irina Zbarskaya said.
In her words, the population census plan will be ready by May.
"It is necessary to collect the maximum amount of information without irritating
people," Surinov said.
Home addresses will be a problem, as nearly half of towns and 17% of villages
have a shortage of street directories. That may complicate the work of census
takers. Local authorities have been asked to provide illumination of streets.
"We will do our best to prevent criminals from entering homes of our citizens
under the disguise of census takers," Surinov said. Census takers will have ids
with several degrees of protection and carry their passports. Besides, every
person will have a right to take part in the population census at a census
station. "About 40% of Muscovites preferred that option in the previous
population census held in 2002. That was the largest rating in the country," he
noted.
The federal service will try to protect census takers, as well. There are various
kinds of hazards, from angry dogs to alcoholic drink offers. "We will teach
census takers how to behave in order not to irritate citizens or to provoke
excessively amicable welcomes," Surinov said.
The population census is due on October 14-25, 2010. In the areas difficult of
access, the census will begin on April 1 and end on December 20. The Yamal-Nenets
autonomous district will be the first to have the population census. In all,
Russia has 126 districts difficult of access in 26 regions. They have the
population of about 500,000 people.
"We are thoroughly preparing for the census of over 2 million people living in
military garrisons, monasteries, convents and hospices," Surinov said. The census
of homeless people will require charity food, free medical checkups and baths.
"The population census will draw the country's portrait, and everyone must take
part in it to make this portrait complete," Surinov said.
Preliminary results of the population census will be posted by April 2011. The
data will be updated later on.
Deputy Prime Minister and Government Office Head Sergei Sobyanin was put in
charge of the population census commission. Presidential Aide Oleg Markov is his
deputy, a source at the Federal Statistic Service told Itar-Tass on Friday.
The commission includes Federal Statistic Service head Alexander Surinov, Moscow
Regional Governor Boris Gromov, St. Petersburg Governor Valentina Matviyenko, and
President of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) Vyacheslav Shtyrov, as well as
government workers responsible for census management and security.
Later on, Surinov will turn his blog into a debate club, and readers will be
welcome to make comment on the work of the Federal State Statistic Service and to
ask questions. He promised to answer the questions personally despite his busy
schedule. "Please, do not hesitate to ask questions, to share your opinion and to
offer critique. Join the discussion. You are truly welcome," he said.
[return to Contents]
#5
Business New Europe
www.businessneweurope.eu
March 22, 2010
Russia to spend more on education than defence
By Ben Aris
I am a bit shocked that this story has got almost no play in the press at all -
not even the Moscow Times picked it up, which, given the amount of money the
Kremlin says it is going to spend, is a major omission. Furthermore, this is
extremely good news. As bne has been reporting there was a huge flaw in
Medvedev's plans to modernise Russia - nothing was being done to fix the
education system.
This is an extremely serious problem as the Soviet-trained professors are mostly
about to retire and there is no one to replace them. The upshot would have been
the destruction of Russia's education system -- one of the very few achievements
of socialism. If the system is allowed to collapse then it will take decades to
rebuild.
We ran a piece recently on the number of scientists Russia has per capita and the
number of patents it files: the result was Russia has about ten times more
scientists than its peers, but files half as many patents. The whole
nanotech/modernisation effort will fail unless a huge amount of money is poured
into academia. And here it is. I really thought they were going to fluff this
(although there is still time for that).
Still, final comment is that 4.4% of GDP, while a lot of money, is still less
than the Asian Tigers spent at the start of their fast growth. Nevertheless it is
still a big step in the right direction as these sorts of investments are
game-changers in the long run. END
Russia's government says it will start to invest more into the education of its
population than it currently spends on defence, reports Interfax.
"In 2010, 4.4% of the GDP will be allocated from the consolidated budget to
ensure the education system's compliance with the demands of the innovative
economy and to maintain all systemic changes," Russian Deputy Prime Minister
Sergei Ivanov said on March 19.
Ivanov's comments were followed by an announcement by Russian president Dmitry
Medvedev that the government would build a high tech development centre, dubbed
"Russia's Silicon Valley" next to the privately run (but Kremlin-backed) Skolkovo
business school.
The hub will be a centre of excellence for science and technology to develop and
commercialize new technology, Medvedev told winners of school and university
contests last week.
The ultra-modern centre for developing and commercializing new technology will
focus on five areas, including energy, IT, telecommunications, biomedical
technology and nuclear technology, he said.
Belarus and China have both had a lot of success with these sort of centres. As
bne recently reported, the high tech park in Minsk has spawned a highly
successful software development industry and the government there are currently
planning a second centre.
[return to Contents]
#6
Ex-Soviet Leader Presents New Book
MOSCOW, March 20 (Itar-Tass) - Ex-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has expressed
his concern with "cold war" recurrences. In his speech at the Gorbachev
Foundation on Friday the ex-Soviet president presented his book titled
"Responding to the Challenges of Time" in which he had collected numerous
evidence and documents about the foreign policy in the times of "perestroika"
that put an end to confrontation between the two superpowers.
"We ended the 'cold war' but we keep making the same mistake," Gorbachev said,
commenting on the U.S. military doctrine and attempts to re-divide the world by
"missiles and bases".
For the first time ever the book includes Gorbachev's conversations and talks
with the leaders of the world's leading powers and records of discussions at the
Political Bureau on results of Gorbachev's meetings with foreign leaders. They
give an idea about what prompted Gorbachev and the Political Bureau to decide in
favour of a new course in international affairs.
The book contains many unknown facts and episodes, which, according to Gorbachev,
will shed the light on many events. "Let everybody see how we were 'selling' the
country," Gorbachev joked.
Particularly valuable are materials related to the most dramatic events of that
time: the war in Afghanistan and the withdrawal of Soviet troops from that
country, the Persian Gulf war (Operation Desert Storm) and the events in Eastern
Europe in the last days of the Soviet Union.
The more than 900-page collection of texts and documents has name indexes and
references.
Gorbachev's speech at the presentation turned into long reminiscences of the
events of those years. But he believes that his book can explain a lot.
[return to Contents]
#7
International Congress On Russian Language To Open In Moscow
MOSCOW, March 20 (Itar-Tass) - The fourth international congress "Russian
Language: Historical Fate and the Present" will open at the philological
department of the Moscow State University on Saturday.
"One of the main tasks of this congress is to try to work out a certain language
policy," the department's dean Marina Remneva said. "In order to do that we
should, first of all, admit that the Russian language should become a
consolidating force in society," Remneva went on to say.
"About a thousand reports devoted to problems of contemporary Russian language
will be delivered in the three days of the congress' work. Indeed, this is a
large-scale event. We are expecting about 700 reporters," Anatoly Polikarpov, the
deputy chairman of the organizing committee, told Itar-Tass.
The most urgent topics for discussion include "Russian Language in the Internet",
"Problems of School and High School Education" and "Comparative Literary
Criticism".
In the meantime, the 10th International Forum of Russian language scholars began
its work in Yalta, the Crimea, on Friday. The opening ceremony held at the
Chekhov Theatre had been preceded by a prayer led by Metropolitan Lazar for
Simferopol and the Crimea.
Professor Vladimir Kazarin, the chairman of the organizing committee, said in his
speech that the annual forum of Russian language scholars was positioning Ukraine
primarily as a country where Russian is a native language, where it's indigenous
and where it feels at home.
Second, the forum draws together linguists not only from Belarus, Russia and
Ukraine but also scholars in Ukrainian, Polish, Bulgarian, Czech, Serbian,
Slovenian and Slovakian languages.
Guests from Germany, Turkey and China are attending the forum as guests.
Vsevolod Loskutov, the minister-counsellor of the Russian embassy in Ukraine,
greeted the participants. He read out a message of greetings from Russian Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov.
The Russian foreign minister believes that the forum of Russian language scholars
will contribute to Russian-Ukrainian relations. He said he was sure that the 10th
international forum of Russian-language scholars would become a major educational
and cultural event for Ukraine, Russia and many other countries.
"Today, there are real opportunities for deepening Russian-Ukrainian humanitarian
cooperation which strengthens an entire set of relations between Russia and
Ukraine," Lavrov said in his message.
He added that the forum's contribution to achieving that noble goal is
invaluable. The more so, that the forum is being held ahead of the celebrations
of the 65th anniversary of Victory over fascism.
[return to Contents]
#8
Almost 30 per cent of Russians ready to take part in protests - poll
Interfax
Moscow, 19 March: Poor financial circumstances, price rises, unemployment, poor
utility services, lawlessness, corruption and bureaucracy lead to an increase in
the protest sentiments in Russia, the level of which has increased by a third in
the last month, sociologists' research shows.
Thirty per cent of Russians surveyed in the middle of March in 44 constituent
parts of the Russian Federation by sociologists from the Public Opinion
Foundation (FOM), noted an increase in the protest sentiments in the country,
while a month ago such respondents numbered 21 per cent.
At the present time, 29 per cent of citizens declared their readiness to
personally take part in mass protest actions and 60 per cent declined.
In response to a question by FOM sociologists about their readiness to take part
in rallies or demonstrations this Sunday (21 March) in defence of their rights,
20 per cent of respondents replied affirmatively and 66 per cent are not
intending to (take part).
Poor financial circumstances (11 per cent), price rises (7 per cent), poor
utility services and unemployment (6 per cent each), lawlessness, corruption and
the authorities' bureaucracy (4 per cent) caused the most discontent for
citizens. They are also concerned by the economic situation in the country,
problems in healthcare and education, housing and uncertainty in tomorrow (1 per
cent each).
Sociologists from Levada Centre have also recorded an increase in protest
sentiments. According to their data, received by Interfax today, 27 per cent of
Russians believe mass demonstrations by citizens against the decline in living
standards are possible at the present time, while in December 2009 25 per cent of
citizens held this opinion and in October - 21 per cent.
According to their data, two-thirds of those polled (66 per cent) believe protest
actions by citizens to be unlikely now (in October last year - 72 per cent).
The proportion of Russians ready to personally take part in protest rallies
increased from 17 to 20 per cent in the last three months. The number of those
who are not ready to support such actions decreased from 76 to 72 per cent.
More often than others, Russians aged 40-54 (23 per cent), with a secondary
education (21 per cent), residents of medium-sized towns (23 per cent) and with a
low income (30 per cent) expressed readiness to take part in protest actions.
Russians aged 25-39 (76 per cent), with a higher education (79 per cent),
residents of Moscow and St Petersburg (82 per cent), with a high income (83 per
cent) are more likely to refuse to take part in actions, the Levada Centre poll,
carried out in 42 Russian regions, showed.
[return to Contents]
#9
Kommersant
March 22, 2010
OVERCAST DAY OF WRATH
Political scientists: The opposition overestimates its potential. The authorities
should stop pinning the blame on external subversive activities
Author: Andrei Kozenko, Daniil Turovsky, Aleksei Chernyshev,
Alexandra Konfisakhor, Valery Lavsky
NATIONWIDE PROTEST ACTION FAILED TO DRAW A GOOD DEAL OF PARTICIPANTS
The opposition had promised to make the Day of Wrath last week-end
a truly nationwide protest action but failed to keep its promises.
Actions took place in only some cities across the country where
they drew 1,500-2,000 men each. Protests in Moscow the authorities
had banned were dispersed by the police that arrested 70 or so
protesters. Representatives of the opposition meanwhile refuse to
call it a failure. Solidarity Movement activists claim that up to
20,000 participated in rallies and pickets in 48 cities.
The Moscow authorities denied the opposition permission to
meet on Pushkin Square but sent the police there just on the off
chance that the opposition would meet all the same. About 300
protesters did turn up.
Some protesters decided to join Lev Ponomarev of the Movement
for Human Rights who said that he was going to Chistye Prudy where
a rally had been permitted. Those who decided to take metro
actually made it. The others foolishly decided to walk but
encountered cordons that delayed them sufficiently to allow police
reinforcements to arrive. Thirty or so walkers were herded into
coaches and whisked to a nearby police station. (Yesterday, the
Left Front condemned the police for organization of "mass
disorders" in Moscow.)
One of the largest rallies took place in Vladivostok. Almost
2,000 locals attended a rally there organized by a coalition
comprising the CPRF, Yabloko, Popular Democratic Union, and TIGR
Movement. "People were incensed by the lies proliferated by the
authorities that the rally had been forbidden," said Vladimir
Bespalov of the Vladivostok Municipal Committee of the CPRF. In
any event, protesters demanded resignations of Premier Putin and
Governor Darkin. Resolution adopted at the rally demanded from
United Russia leadership "acknowledgement of responsibility for
the nationwide decline of living standards."
Day of Wrath actions in St.Petersburg took place in two
locations at once, attendance at each estimated at approximately
500 people. Those present demanded resignations of Putin and
Governor Valentina Melnikova and protested against the plans of
Okhta-Center construction.
Almost 1,500 locals in Yaroslavl protested against high
communal and housing tariffs. In Irkutsk, those who attended the
rally protested against the start-up of the Baikal Pulp and Paper
Plant.
Opposition activists were detained all over the country.
"March 20 actions plainly show that the opposition tends to
overestimate its own organizational potential and that the
authorities are definitely wrong to seek external subversive
influence in protests," political scientist Alexander Kynev said.
"What they also showed, however, is expansion of the geography of
protests. There are the regions where protests were wholly
unthinkable a year or two ago. Fully-fledged rallies and pickets
take place there nowadays."
[return to Contents]
#10
Profil
N9
March 15, 2010
FINE-TUNING THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
The Russian judicial system has been approaching European standards. That is not
accidental, as the court reform is a top priority issue for Lawyer Dmitry
Medvedev
The judicial reform in Russia: its current status and prospects for the future
Author: Mikhail Vinogradov
[Supreme Arbitration Court (SAC) Chairman Anton Ivanov, one of the
authors of the judicial reform in Russia and a college mate of the
RF President, shares his view of the reform implementation and
results]
Supreme Arbitration Court (SAC) Chairman Anton Ivanov, one of
the authors of the judicial reform in Russia and a college mate of
the RF President, shares his view of the reform implementation and
results.
Q. - What is your estimation of the current modernization rate
of Russia's judicial system?
A. - As any other structure, our judicial system founded in the
early 1990's needs modernization due to the changing social and
economic environment. During the past two decades our judicial
system developed extensively. New courts were set up; the number of
judges increased; new buildings were constructed... In other words,
material issues were tackled, and the system expanded. Currently it
is time to launch the judicial system's intensive development
focusing on its update designed to meet today's requirements. We do
not need another reform; our judicial system will not survive it. We
have to launch very scrupulous and accurate work for fine-tuning the
existing complicated mechanism.
A lot has been done already. A draft law 'On General
Jurisdiction Courts' was elaborated and submitted that suggested
introducing courts of appeal into the general jurisdiction courts
system. That was the first step towards streamlining the appeal
system. Modernization of the supervision service is on. According to
researchers, currently there are three to four supervision stages in
general jurisdiction courts, and only one stage of supervision in
SAC, which has been named an efficient means of legal support.
Q. - What top priority reform objectives will be implemented in
the upcoming two to three years?
A. - It is vital to renovate all appeals instances and their
interrelation in general jurisdiction courts. In our system there
are two main directions, a further introduction of IT technologies
and courts specialization. That means setting up a system of special
courts for considering certain cases, such as patent, tax, or
financial ones. Currently RF SAC is elaborating amendments to legal
acts presupposing arbitration courts' extended special competence in
pronouncing judgment for disputes in the tax and customs spheres;
financial market sphere; investment and anti-monopoly spheres. After
those amendments have been granted, new cases will be channeled to
our system. Setting up a specialized courts system is one of the
measures designed to provide for an efficient judgment of such
disputes. Their court proceedings will be accelerated due to fewer
appeal instance stages. Wee have already judges specializing not
only in private or public cases, but also within their collegiums.
SAC is specialized in elements of offence, while the Moscow
Arbitration Court's specialization is even more detailed.
Q. - A year ago President Medvedev launched an anti-corruption
campaign. You are member of the Anti-Corruption Council. You
participated in elaborating several laws in that sphere. In your
opinion, have the adopted measures started to produce effect?
A. - We have fine-tuned our internal law to meet provisions of
the international anti-corruption conventions that we have already
signed. We adopted several new laws laying the foundation for anti-
corruption measures. In my opinion, currently it is time to pass
from framework measures to concrete work. The main task is fighting
'street' corruption. It is possible to considerably dampen it, and
the society will see results in no time. As for the so-called 'white
collar' corruption, it is not so obvious, and it will take more
efforts to identify it. The main initiative of the adopted package
of measures was a requirement that judges and functionaries submit
their income and private property declarations. In 2010, judges will
have to submit those declarations for the first time, and we expect
certain results to follow.
Q. - What main achievements of the anti-corruption campaign in
arbitration courts could you highlight?
A. - Annually some 60 judges are discredited for various
reasons in our judicial system, and 6-7 of them are accused of
corruption. In our arbitration judicial system, of 4,000 judges only
2-3 discredit cases are related to corruption. I believe that is not
bad. Certainly, from time to time we come across strange and even
unjust judgments. Sometimes courts violate practical recommendations
of supreme courts, thus ignoring the approved court practice. Is
corruption always involved there? I do not think so. However, when
we come across a number of 'strange' judgments, we have every reason
for questioning the judge's honesty, and pass materials to
qualification collegiums.
Q. - Why do you think cannot the death penalty issue be
ultimately settled in Russia?
A. - I would not speak of ultimate solutions in legal issues.
But I have always been against the death penalty. I believe we could
ultimately ban it. Life-long imprisonment is no less strict
punishment.
Q. - What are prospects for the jury trial development in
Russia? Reportedly, the jury trial will be banned in Chechnya in the
near future, though the law introduced it there in January 2010. Is
there any shared vision of that issue of judicial reform
ideologists?
A. - The jury trial is a necessary legal instrument, and we
have to improve it, not ban. It was introduced not so long ago into
the Russian judicial system, so it is only natural that it needs
being fine-tuned and tested. However, when developing its
application rules, one must take into consideration various factors
and peculiarities, including national and social ones. It is also
important to realize that our society has not accepted jet the jury
trial as an active part of our judicial system. So far we cannot
claim that our people have realized that psrticipation in the jury
trial work is one's genuine civil duty.
[return to Contents]
#11
Gazeta
March 22, 2010
IDEOLOGY FOR POLICE
The Public House presented its concept of reorganization of the police
Author: Olesya Shmagun, Anastaia Novikova
THE PUBLIC HOUSE STANDS FOR TRANSFORMATION OF THE POLICE INTO A CIVILIAN
STRUCTURE
The Public House presented its ideas on reorganization of the
Interior Ministry first suggested by President Dmitry Medvedev.
They come down to a split of the whole structure into federal
police and municipal militia and its transformation into a
civilian structure.
The Public House's variant was outlined in a speech by
Oversight Commission Chairman Anatoly Kucherena. It is necessary
to add that the Public House draw its concept of the police force
reforms simultaneously with analogous work of a special commission
established within the Interior Ministry itself.
The federal police force as conceived by the Public House is
supposed to deal with the cases necessitating preliminary
investigation (i.e. grave crimes). Municipal militia in its turn
will handle petty matters, prevention of crimes, and
administrative violations. Authors of the concept suggested making
the heads of municipal police elected officials. The head of the
federal police was to be nominated by the president and endorsed
by the Duma.
(Federation Council Chairman Sergei Mironov had suggested
this idea once.)
"As a matter of fact, this whole premise of splitting the
police into federal and municipal levels is flawed. It will
encourage a merger of the municipal militia with the local
authorities, so that the former will be at the latter's beck and
call," said Yevgeny Chernousov, lawyer and Colonel (retired) of
the police. "Besides, every now and then decisions have to be made
at higher levels than the municipal. The split will certainly make
these situations even more difficult to handle."
Some of the ideas suggested by the Public House echoed what
Medvedev had suggested in the Presidential Message when he was
talking about surplus functions encumbering the police. In fact,
the Public House outdid the president and suggested stripping the
Interior Ministry of a good deal of functions more than the
president had mentioned. It said that it was necessary to have
some of the functions performed by private structures but
supervised by the police. All in all, the concept formulated by
the Public House suggested a shift of emphasis from dealing with
crimes already committed to their prevention.
Authors of the concept suggested personal criminal and
disciplinary responsibility of senior officers for misbehavior of
their subordinates.
Also importantly, Public House experts insisted on
demilitarization of the Interior Ministry. They said that it would
foment in police officers "a sense of belonging to society" and
bridge "the gap between society and the police."
Chernousov commented that it was folly and said that a
civilian would never fit the system. "Sure, the police ought to be
closer to the people but not that close," he said.
[return to Contents]
#12
Moscow Times
March 22, 2010
Gryzlov Says Putin-Medvedev Tandem to Rule After 2012
By Nabi Abdullaev
President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin will continue ruling
Russia in a tandem after 2012, when Medvedev's first presidential term expires,
State Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov said Friday.
"There can't be any contradictions in the Medvedev-Putin tandem by default. That
is why they will work in this tandem after 2012," Gryzlov said in an online
interview with the Gazeta.ru news portal.
Gryzlov was responding to some of the more than 3,000 angry questions and caustic
remarks about himself and United Russia that had been submitted by readers over
the course of a week.
The interview was initially scheduled for Wednesday, and Gryzlov often described
by critics as "the Android" for his low-key personality and perceived servility
to Putin faced sharp criticism when he decided to skip it at the last minute,
citing a Security Council meeting on global warming.
Gryzlov also said Friday that a program called Clean Water to install water
filters that he co-invented in buildings nationwide would go ahead despite
criticism that his dual involvement as a patent holder and a lawmaker who decides
the state budget marked a conflict of interest.
He said his critics in the media "serve the powers that do not want our citizens
to live long, quality lives."
Gryzlov blamed unspecified foreign powers for growing anti-government street
rallies, saying foreign money was being funneled through nongovernmental
organizations to pay people to participate in the rallies.
"Here we get the taste of a color revolution," he said, referring to the
nonviolent public protests that led to regime changes in Georgia in 2003 and in
Ukraine in 2004.
Asked about his infamous statement that the Duma was not a place for discussion,
Gryzlov complained that journalists had distorted his original appeal to stop
parliamentary "battles" that sometimes resulted in fistfights.
Gryzlov dismissed suggestions that bureaucrats had forced citizens to vote for
United Russia or had bought their votes during regional elections on March 14. He
conceded that some bureaucrats had pressed their subordinates to vote, but he
said they could not check whether the votes had been cast for United Russia,
which he and Putin lead.
As for offering money for votes, as some media have reported, Gryzlov said this
would be "too expensive."
Gryzlov praised United Russia which is routinely accused of stifling any dissent
for "creating real powers" out of the Communist, Liberal Democratic and Just
Russia parties the only parties other than United Russia that have seats in the
Duma. The Communist and Liberal Democrat parties are a decade older than United
Russia, and their representation in the Duma and regional legislatures has
dwindled as United Russia developed into the ruling party.
"We live in a beautiful state," Gryzlov said as he concluded the interview.
[return to Contents]
#13
Deutsche Welle
March 19, 2010
Medvedev, Putin grapple for power in Moscow
Author: David Francis
Russian President Medvedev made it clear from the beginning that he does not
stand in Vladimir Putin's shadow. Two years into his presidency, Medvedev is
making a play for more power as he seeks to assert himself.
When Russian President Dmitiri Medvedev took office, he was widely perceived as a
pawn of former Russian President and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
Medvedev was, after all, Putin's hand-picked successor.
However, two years into his terms, Medvedev is beginning to display an
independent streak, openly disagreeing with Putin, and urging Russia to make
reforms in a number of areas. Putin, meanwhile, has announced he is considering a
run for the Russian presidency in 2012, which would likely keep Medvedev out of
the race.
There have also been public disagreements between the two, something unheard of
in Medvedev's early days as Russian president.
Medvedev has said that Russia needs a "stably functioning multiparty system" of
government - currently Russian politics are dominated by Putin and Medvedev's
United Russia party - and said that Russian government needs to serve as the
"protectors of small peoples." Both of these statements contrast with Putin's
more muscular rhetoric about Russia's one-party government.
Now the question that has been asked since Putin escorted Medvedev to his victory
rally in Red Square in March 2008 is being asked again: does this rhetoric signal
that Medvedev will use his presidency to enact liberal reforms within Russia, or
is his rhetoric empty?
Perception versus reality
Despite recent comments, most of the western world believes that Medvedev is
simply a figure head and that Russian power lies solely with Putin. The former
president is widely popular with Russians, who believed it was his strong hand
that allowed Russia to emerge from the chaos of the late 1990s and return to the
superpower status in the last decade.
Some of Medvedev's actions have done little to change this perception. He has
made few changes to senior staff as president, and has let Putin commandeer the
spotlight at will.
However, in recent months, Medvedev has shown small signs of rebellion. He chairs
a think tank which recently called for a Russian president who has power over the
higher levels of government, and a prime minister who runs the lower levels of
Russian bureaucracy.
He has also taken shots at the Putin presidency, which he said was rife with
corruption. He has gone as far as to institute measures to try to combat
bureaucratic malfeasance.
Medvedev has also said economic reforms enacted by Putin have failed, because the
energy sector was the only sector of the economy to thrive. When energy prices
fell, Russia suffered.
The economy criticism is particularly acute as many Russians struggle to overcome
not just the financial crisis, but an economy whose strength is located in the
western part of the country. Russia's vast east has yet to experience the growth
that Moscow and St. Petersburg have, making it a ripe for anti-Putin sentiment to
ferment.
In recent days, Medvedev has said publicly that it is he, not Putin, who runs
Russia, a rare statement coming from an elected head of state.
"I am the leader of this state," he said March 12. "I am the head of this state,
and the division of power is based on this."
Putin still the Russian figurehead
Despite Medvedev's claim, Putin remains the Russian figurehead and its most
potent symbol of power. When Medvedev has managed to gain the spotlight, it is
only because Putin has ceded it to him, says Konstaine Sonin, a professor at the
New Economic School in Moscow.
"Putin
Mitchell Orenstein, a professor of European studies at Johns Hopkins University
of Advanced International Studies, said that concern over who is in charge in
Russia is more of an American pastime than a European one.
Orenstein says that Europeans are more willing to accept Russia as is. For
instance, Germany, which has criticized Russia on issues like human rights, is a
willing business partner, and calls for more cooperation with Moscow.
"A lot of US enthusiasm about Medvedev might be called typical American naivete,"
he told Deutsche Welle. "Europeans tend not to be swayed by liberal rhetoric
about Russia."
[return to Contents]
#14
Moscow Times
March 22, 2010
A Medvedev Tea Party Could Be the Answer
By Vladimir Frolov
Vladimir Frolov is president of LEFF Group, a government-relations and PR
company.
The Kremlin is mulling the idea of a new liberal party that would promote
President Dmitry Medvedev's modernization agenda and mobilize public support for
his policies in the run-up to the parliamentary elections in 2011 and
presidential election in 2012.
It is an idea that should be approached with great caution. There are strong
arguments why Medvedev needs a political party to advance his agenda and equally
strong reasons why he should not be rushing into forming one.
Unlike Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who heads United Russia, Medvedev has no
political party he can call home. Although he has appeared at several United
Russia congresses, he has generally kept his distance from the party, suggesting
at one time that it has to reform itself to keep up with new challenges.
Medvedev does need a political instrument to marshal public support for his
modernization efforts. He has to shed the perception of a political loner, a
detached and techie president who promotes his visions through his blog. At some
point, he will have to fight for his agenda by leading a political party in
national elections.
Were a Medvedev party to corral public support and do well in the State Duma
elections of 2011, it would put him in a strong position to seek reelection for a
second term in 2012. But this is precisely the argument for going slow on forming
a Medvedev party right now. It would amount to a declaration of war on Putin.
Signaling the end of tandemocracy, it would split the Russian elites and marshal
in a new period of political instability that the country can ill afford. In the
end, it would delay, not expedite, Medvedev's modernization program.
Nor should he build a party the old-fashioned way from the top down.
Instead, Medvedev should start a serious dialogue on how to regain the country's
competitive edge. A good article or speech is not enough. Medvedev will have to
engage personally in meetings across the country.
He needs to ignite a Russian Tea Party movement of sorts and press for a
progressive agenda. A genuine grassroots movement has to coalesce around
Medvedev's ideas before making a decision on the best vehicle to project its
agenda into electoral politics. It's a long haul, but he still has time for that.
[return to Contents]
#15
Trend Toward Split in Putin-Medvedev 'Tandemocracy' Seen
Svobodnaya Pressa
www.svpressa.ru
March 15, 2010
Article by Lev Ivanov: "Medvedev Is Ready To Govern Alone"
The demand for Putin's resignation sounds increasingly louder, and the president
is taking on veteran siloviki (security officials) as allies.
As the date "2012" approaches, the attempt to drive a wedge in the "tandemocracy"
is becoming more and more vigorous. To illustrate, a few days ago, the initiative
of certain "social forces" to collect signatures for the resignation of Vladimir
Putin, the chairman of the government, appeared on the Internet. And although on
14 March, only about 8,000 signatures had been collected on the website, a
different fact is interesting: both these and many other "protestors" demand the
departure from the political arena of only Vladimir Putin, but not President
Dmitriy Medvedev.
Putin's resignation was demanded at rallies in Kaliningrad, Baykalsk, and a lot
of other "dying cities" in the last few months. But nowhere was a call for
Medvedev's departure heard.
"The Putin model is dead."
The tendency toward the "divorce" of the ruling couple, the Putin-Medvedev
tandem, was spotted not only in Russia but in the United States as well. To
illustrate, in late February The Washington Post offered the floor to Anders
Aslund, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics,
who has met with "a number of high-ranking persons" in Moscow.
"The Putin model is dead. It merely distributed the major oil profits among the
elite and ordinary people without creating either moral or economic value. The
discordant criticism from the lips of the elite makes the year 2010 somewhat
similar to 1987. In December the old Kremlin courtier Gleb Pavlovskiy (the
president of the Effective Policy Foundation -- Svobodnaya Pressa) even called
for Putin's resignation, saying that the premier is old-fashioned," Aslund
writes.
The Swedish economist is certain that Vladislav Surkov, the first deputy head of
the President's Staff, has begun to act against Putin: "As people are saying in
Moscow, Putin blamed Surkov, saying that the latter permitted the demonstration
in Kaliningrad on 30 January. In the meantime, Medvedev, in publicly criticizing
the state corporations, the MVD (Ministry of Internal Affairs), and corruption,
makes it possible for others to join in this criticism and offer an alternative
platform of power."
However, unlike Putin, Medvedev does not have a large and weighty team. While the
chairman of the government when he was president could count on a vast clan of
Chekists, as well as people from the St. Petersburg mayor's office with whom he
had worked in "civilian life," Medvedev's cadre reserve consists only of his
classmates at the St. Petersburg University law school.
That is why, as people are saying in the corridors of the President's Staff, at
the start of his presidential term, the set of Medvedev's powers was in fact
limited to reform of the judicial system and then too, insignificant image
projects.
Actually in the two years of his presidency, Dmitriy Medvedev has been able to
advance only four or five of his own people into the government. Primarily that
means Anton Ivanov, the chairman of the Supreme Arbitration Court; Minister of
Justice Aleksandr Konovalov; Nikolay Vinnichenko, the president's plenipotentiary
representative in the Ural Federal District; and Konstantin Chuychenko, the
deputy head of the Presidential Staff. Admittedly, however, recently there have
been persistent rumors going around that one other man from Medvedev's team --
Nikolay Kropachev, the rector of St. Petersburg University -- may take over a
high post -- he may replace Valentina Matviyenko as mayor of the second capital.
"Medvedev may end up like Yushchenko."
It is striking even to the ordinary inhabitant that Medvedev continues to play
"second fiddle" in the power tandem. Moreover, Russian citizens' attitude toward
him is not undergoing the best changes.
Back in 1998 the Nizhniy Novgorod Department of the RAN (Russian Academy of
Sciences) Institute of Sociology conducted a study entitled "The
Personally-Oriented Expectations of the President by Russia's Citizens." As the
director of this study, Aleksandr Prudnik, a senior scientific associate, told
Svobodnaya Pressa, at that time Russian citizens wanted to see a collective image
of such individuals as Peter the Great, Zhukov, Zheglov, and Shtirlits in the new
president. And Vladimir Putin proved to be the kind of ruler who for Russian
citizens fit this model completely. The start of Putin's rule was a borrowing
from Peter the Great's period as tsar: the gathering of lands. The victory over
Chechnya was the image of Zhukov. The "YuKOS case" is certainly the period of the
"investigator Zheglov." Finally, Shtirlits is Putin's current period. The people
believe that Vladimir Vladimirovich "hid among foes until better times."
Aleksandr Prudnik says that the people this time expect conformity with different
images from the new president, Putin's successor. "It is a synthesis of Stalin,
Che Guevara, and a figure in Dostoyevsky's novel -- Prince Myshkin. But Dmitriy
Medvedev does not fit even one of them. And that produces profound disappointment
among the people," he explains.
As Prudnik believes, neither the people nor Medvedev can find any things in
common with one another. "And the people are starting to put a negative label on
the president. From the very start, Russian citizens perceived him as a weak
politician, but the image of the president, 'the supreme power,' because of the
mentality of the people leveled out this negative. So only the image of Prince
Myshkin was attached to Medvedev. With the addition of the images of Stalin and
Che Guevara, this would not have been terrible, but there is no such addition. I
am afraid that President Dmitriy Medvedev may end up like Yushchenko, who was
also never able to overcome the 'complex of failure to suit' the people," Prudnik
sums up.
The president is recruiting the siloviki.
Dmitriy Medvedev himself also probably understands that he is lacking the image
of a "strong person," if not of Stalin, as the people expect, at least in part -
of Putin. But without the support of the siloviki, above all the special
services, the president -- even though he really might want to be -- will be
unable to be perceived as a "tough" ruler. Dmitriy Medvedev would perhaps even
like to assert his authority with a new "YuKOS case" or even replacement of the
prime minister (as Yeltsin or Putin changed them), but that is impossible to do
without the security component.
By the way, some experts with whom Svobodnaya Pressa spoke claim that Medvedev,
in an evolutionary way, is attempting to remove the current siloviki from power,
above all the "St. Petersburg Chekists." Olga Kryshtanovskaya, the director of
the RAN Center for the Study of the Elite and author of the study "The Anatomy of
the Russian Elite," tells Svobodnaya Pressa that the total number of siloviki in
power in the last two years has declined from 42% to 30%. "A regrouping of forces
is now underway in the government," she notes.
Moreover, as a certain expert notes, the president already has the experience of
fighting the siloviki using PR techniques. "In his battle for the status of
successor, Medvedev was once able to develop the 'case of the soldier Andrey
Sychev,' which then undermined the claims of the second candidate for the throne
-- Minister of Defense Sergey Ivanov," he reminds people.
The expert says that the current attack on the MVD and the flagrant incidents of
police tyranny made public are from that same series. "The attack was a partial
success. Although Nurgaliyev was able to remain in office, still an entire set of
regional leaders of the MVD as well as part of its apparat were replaced," he
adds.
As yet another expert who is a retired high-ranking representative of the FSB
(Federal Security Service) told Svobodnaya Pressa, Dmitriy Medvedev has been
consulting with veterans of the special services more and more in the last three
or four months. "Among these people, hypothetically let us say, those who are
older than 55-60 years of age, there is enormous dissatisfaction with the St.
Petersburg Chekists, whom they disdainfully call 'liberals' and 'lieutenant
colonels.' The veterans believe that in the early 2000s, they were cheated out of
property, posts, and influence. Nor can they forgive how the 'liberal Chekists'
with their informal leader Yevgeniy Maksimovich Primakov acted in the late
1990s," he says.
Yet another change in Medvedev's attitude toward the siloviki is their seating at
the Security Council session. Back since the times of Yeltsin with his statement
"We do not sit that way!" this has been a symbol of closeness or distance from
the president. Well then, while under Putin the leaders of the FSB and the MVD
sat next to him on his right and on his left, under Medvedev the closest people
to him at Security Council sessions are State Duma Speaker Gryzlov and Federation
Council Chairman Mironov. And the siloviki are now located at the far end of the
table (FSB head Bortnikov is actually the very last in the row).
By the way, as has been the case more than once now, experts' predictions of
cadre changes in the top echelons of power may not prove to be far-sighted, to
put it mildly. Olga Kryshtanovskaya tells Svobodnaya Pressa that everything "is
hidden from the eyes of researchers." However, as most experts polled by
Svobodnaya Pressa believe, the tandemocracy will all the same break up into two
centers of power -- at the latest in the spring of 2011 when the new successor is
supposed to be determined. "By the way, the tandemocracy may even continue its
existence, but on one condition -- if Medvedev agrees to become prime minister
under president Putin," one of the experts says.
[return to Contents]
#16
BBC Monitoring
Russian radio pundit comments on Iran, regional elections, protests, Georgia
Ekho Moskvy Radio
March 20, 2010
Russian political commentator Yuliya Latynina has said that Russia does not want
to find a solution to Iran's nuclear problem and that opposition protests on Day
of Wrath on 20 March were "unexpectedly strong".
She described the results of the 14 March regional elections as "very unpleasant"
for the ruling party. Also, while admitting that the Georgian TV hoax report
about a Russian invasion was the wrong thing to do,
Latynina said she was still waiting for the Russian authorities to apologize for
the lies which had been told by Russian television during the Russian-Georgian
war over South Ossetia in August 2008.
Latynina made these comments on her regular weekly slot, Access Code, on
Gazprom-owned, but editorially independent, Russian radio station Ekho Moskvy on
20 March.
Iran
Latynina said the statement which Prime Minister Vladimir Putin had made on 18
March to the effect that Russia will help Iran to start up the Bushehr nuclear
power plant "sounds rather strange against the background of America's attempts
to reset relations with Russia and (US Secretary of State) Mrs Hillary Clinton's
visit to Moscow". But, in actual fact, she added, it was in line with Russia's
foreign policy in recent years.
"All this time America has been trying to get Putin's support for sanctions
against Iran," Latynina said. "But this is difficult to achieve because Vladimir
Vladimirovich (Putin) wants nothing more than for Israel to attack Iran because
this will make the price of oil go up."
"Essentially, Russian foreign policy boils down to creating situations rather
than resolving them. Iran means precisely creating a situation," Latynina said.
Social unrest
According to Latynina, opposition protests which were held across Russia as part
of the nationwide Day of Wrath on 20 March were "unexpectedly strong".
"Unexpectedly strong protests are starting to take place. Today's protests were
not as strong as the opposition would have wanted but they were much stronger
than, for example, I had expected," she said.
Election results
Commenting on the results of the 14 March regional elections, Latynina said that
they were "very unpleasant" for the One Russia ruling party and that "nobody had
expected them".
She said the fact that One Russia showed results that were much worse than
expected would not change anything in Russia. "I don't expect all this excitement
will lead to anything," she said.
She offered her explanation as to why this had happened. According to her, One
Russia's poor performance was first and foremost the result of "gross mistakes by
the authorities" in each region where this had happened.
She pointed to the example of Irkutsk.
"What was the cause of protest voting in Irkutsk? Look, it is a huge region which
should be very profitable because it does not sit there sucking its thumb. It has
the Bratsk aluminium plant, the Irkutsk aluminium plant, the Angarsk oil and
chemical plant... and they are all operating - in other words, there are a huge
number of plants that are operating there," Latynina said.
"And it would seem," she continued, "that the region must be profitable. Instead
we can see a depressed region which its residents are leaving. During the years
of Putin's rule the population went down by a third, if I remember correctly. It
is one of the regions that is being abandoned at a very fast speed," Latynina
explained.
"It is an unprofitable region, according to the Finance Ministry's
classification. This happens because the system of financial distribution in
Russia is horrendous: first the centre takes everything and then the centre
allocates financing in small pieces. Thus, a region which is one of the backbones
of Russia is unprofitable and depressed, according to the classification of this
topsy-turvy financial system," she said.
"So people voted against this. Moreover, there is (Oleg) Deripaska (Russian
oligarch who controls most of the aluminium sector), who is perceived as an
outsider and a protege of Putin... So, (Sergey) Serebrennikov (One Russia
candidate who lost to Communist party candidate Viktor Kondrashov in the Irkutsk
mayoral election), the former mayor of Bratsk, who is regarded as a protege of
Deripaska, lost ignominiously and very unexpectedly," she added.
"In principle, the Russian authorities are very stable," Latynina said. "Their
popularity depends on the price of oil. One needs to do something well nigh
impossible to reduce one's own popularity at the current price of oil. The most
amazing thing is that the Russian authorities, it seems, have succeeded in doing
exactly that."
Georgian TV report about Russian invasion
Latynina said she had received many questions about a fake report on the Georgian
TV channel Imedi saying that Russian troops had invaded Georgia and that
Saakashvili had been killed. "I can say straightaway that the report was idiotic.
It was idiotic because people should not stoop to the level of villains,
otherwise they become villains themselves," she said.
At the same time, Latynina pointed out that Saakashvili "is involved not only in
putting out idiotic reports". "Over the past few years, without the benefit of a
trillion and a half of petrodollars, Saakashvili has managed to build a state in
which not only Tbilisi has lighting and asphalted roads, which it did not have
before, but in which policemen do not murder people, unlike in Russia," she said.
"It is a very different state. Therefore the Russian authorities hate the
Georgian state," she added.
The Georgian report was silly, Latynina admitted. But, she continued, "I haven't
heard the Russian authorities apologizing for the lies they spread on television
during the war in Georgia, which, you would agree, is much more important. For
example, during the war in Georgia we were told that 2,000 Ossetians had been
killed in Tskhinvali (South Ossetia)."
As a result of this and other lies, Latynina said, "bandits who called themselves
the (South Ossetian) home guard... organized what even (Heidi) Tagliavini's mild
report described as ethnic cleansing in Georgian villages (REFERENCE to the
EU-backed report into the causes of the Russia-Georgia war of 2008)".
"So, this is the problem: the 2,000 corpses did not exist but the ethnic
cleansing did. I would like to know when Russian TV will apologize for these
lies," Latynina said.
"And the last question. Why did people believe this report? Why did they suffer
heart problems? Perhaps, because it all looked too plausible?" she asked.
[return to Contents]
#17
Editorial Questions Status of Academy of Sciences
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
March 15, 2010
Editorial: "Expert Examination with Existence at Risk"
It is more difficult for the Russian Academy of Sciences to demonstrate its
uniqueness.
Information agencies have recently reported that protocol instructions from
deputy Valeriy Seleznev (LDPR) have come to the RF State Duma Committee on
Science and the Commission for Fighting Against Corruption with a request that
"the Commission on Pseudoscience under the Russian Academy of Sciences be
investigated". The author is certain that the indicated commission headed by
Academician Eduard Kruglyakov "is obstructing the work of young scientists and
the cultivation of various know-how technologies in Russia".
The report in itself is significant. It almost repeats word for word the public
statement of RF State Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov that he made back on 28 January:
"Unfortunately, many initiatives meet barriers on their way in the form of the
Academy of Sciences and the bureaucracy. I know that the Academy of Sciences even
has a department on pseudoscience. This fact surprises me very much -- how can
they assume responsibility and say what is pseudoscience and what is not? This is
some kind of obscurantism."
Right off we shall specify two starting positions. First, the correct name of the
academy organization, against which the deputy and speaker address their
invectives is the RAN (Russian Academy of Sciences) Commission on Fighting
Pseudoscience and the Falsification of Scientific Research. It works on a public
basis. Secondly, the scientists belonging to it, because they are essentially
better educated than Speaker Gryzlov if only in the second law of thermodynamics
and the law on the preservation of energy, "can assume responsibility and say
what is pseudoscience and what is not". With this we shall leave the "folly of
the brave" members of the State Duma in peace.
The saddest scenario for the development of events is if the RAN should actually
create some kind of regular commission to investigate the work of the Commission
on Fighting Pseudoscience and the Falsification of Scientific Research. This
would mean total intellectual capitulation. Well, at least at the present time no
specific statements have followed from the leadership of the Academy of Sciences
-- its president and Presidium -- with an explanation of its position on the Duma
statements. But there is another important turn in this collision.
To put is simply, the RAN has been hoisted by its own petard. And the Academy of
Sciences should have been ready for such a development of events as soon as in
the last 10-15 years it started constantly to insist and even to demand that it
should be secured with the official status of the state's main expert
organization. Sooner or later the public would have to start finding who was at
fault that the mechanism for the modernization and innovation development of the
country was desperately slipping. And that has begun. Moreover, not just in the
brutal form of the deputies of the State Duma. There are means that are not so
sensational, but much more effective.
For example, the RAN's funding, to which traditionally falls almost half of the
expenditures on civilian science, was cut in 2010 by 5.6 billion rubles compared
with last year. It is not by chance that on 10 March while speaking at the State
Duma, Vice-Premier Sergey Ivanov noted that the funding appropriated for the
development of scientific research was spent ineffectively through 2008. "At that
time we often did not fund science, but only the signboard of an institute, and
few, in fact, were interested in what it did with the money," the vice-premier
said. Probably at that time a chill ran down the spine of not just RAN President
Yuriy Osipov.
All this is right: officials do not need science very much to achieve the
"state's" goals known only to them. They need experts who can help them more or
less appropriately orient themselves in the world of rapidly-developing
technologies. It is good to be an expert because among other things, expert
opinions are often well-paid.
But as recent events show, an expert examination is not only a very pleasant and
profitable exercise, it is also a very crucial and difficult fate. Is the Academy
of Sciences ready for it? Will it pull through?...
[return to Contents]
#18
Science, Church Divided More by Money than Ideology
Gazeta.ru
March 15, 2010
Article by Boris Falikov: "When Money Smells of Incense"
Educated men are increasingly showing a propensity for the church, but young
students are often anti-clerically inclined.
A scandal took place in the MIFI (Moscow Engineering and Physics Institute). Some
future Russian nuclear scientists expressed dissatisfaction with Patriarch Kirill
visiting them. And it was not so much the visit itself as the circumstances of
it. In particular, that the institute's leadership should erect a wooden cross
for the arrival of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. "What are we?" the
students asked indignantly. "A secular higher-learning institution or an Orthodox
seminary?"
Student anti-clericalism is a normal thing. A couple of years ago in Catholic
Italy, students of the La Sapienza University were upset by the decision of the
administration to invite Pope Benedict there: they said he does not respect the
exact sciences and in general is an obscurantist. The Pope thought about it and
didn't come. Why stir up a conflict, especially since some of the professors
supported the students?
Meanwhile this conflict between the adherents of the worldly -- the secularists
-- and conservative believers is picking up speed throughout the Western world.
That wave has even washed up to our shores. The church is trying to increase its
influence in society, and many do not like this. But the conflict between the
anti-clerics and the clerics has its own national features in Russia.
For example, take the head of the Ministry of Education, Andrey Fursenko. Of
course, he was not anti-clerical from birth, but he was a firm supporter of the
principle of cosmopolitanism in school. He was even subjected to public
vilification for this in the "Christmas Readings". And not even two years passed
before he said that the course "The Basics of Religious Cultures" could be taught
to children without ceremony just as physics and mathematics. Or the story about
the letter from the Academicians. It was a hard letter, nothing less than
anti-clerical. It was signed by two Nobel Prize winners. But what about now? The
rector of MGU (Moscow State University), although not a prize winner, is no
slouch in the exact sciences, and he talked ecstatically about the pleasure he
had received from discussing the problems of theoretical physics with Patriarch
Kirill. No one will argue that we do not have an intellectual patriarch, but
nevertheless it would perhaps be more interesting to talk to him about other
topics. One can also chitchat about black holes and antimatter with one's
colleagues. But the rector of MIFI, who met the patriarch by raising a cross in
the territory under his supervision (one would like to understand the exact
meaning of this symbolic act), was trying to teach his dilatory colleagues about
the subtleties of Orthodox etiquette. Which way, for example, is more correct for
venerating the hand of His Holiness.
Of course, one could presume that our scientists and highest officials understood
the full depth of their fall and all appealed at once. And basically, the letter
was signed by one group and the cross raised by another. But that is not what
this is about.
It seems that representatives of the science and near-science establishment
understood that it was necessary to conduct oneself appropriately with the Church
in public. Even very appropriately.
It would be easiest of all to explain that our duumvirate consists of two
Orthodox people, that their spouses are also believers, that true sons of the
Russian Orthodox Church are in key positions, and so on down the line. An
intelligent and energetic politician has come to head the ROC, and he knows how
to conduct himself in the corridors of power. How is the scientific elite of the
country not to start coming under the Church after this? Otherwise they will not
be understood.
So that is how it is. But the speed of the process is striking. And it can be
explained completely prosaically -- read, for economic reasons. It is no secret
to anyone that our government has concentrated the main financial flows in its
hands and is controlling them however it wants. All political and public
organizations understand perfectly well that they have one feed trough, and they
are desperately struggling for a position next to it. All of this is so obvious
that it is not worth writing about. If it were not for one "but". In this
division of the common pie, the leaders of the scientific community participate
side by side with the leaders of the ROC.
In today's world worn out from economic problems, the state increasingly emerges
as the main donor and sponsor of all and everything. But the constitutional
principles dividing Church and state are preserved to a significant degree in the
civilized part of the world, and these do not permit the nose-to-nose
confrontation of religious and secular leaders in the hustle for money.
We also have similar principles. However, like many others, they are nothing more
than decorations raised on the battlefield, on which there is an endless fight
for the favor of those that hand out the money. And if decorations are laid out,
they determine the rules of the game. They are simple. A battle for the division
of resources that is merciless and not at all civilized never abates behind the
scenes. But in front of the public, its participants must conduct themselves in
the appropriate manner. It is very similar to a theater, in which life behind the
scenes is full of intrigue and the favor of the director is achieved at any
price. However, coming out onto the stage, the actors behave as their roles
prescribe. And former rivals, if this is the will of the playwright, persuasively
demonstrate the highest feelings for each other.
We note that the anti-clerical letter of the academicians was written as a
petition to the government, a sort of public outcry against the trampling of
justice. But our government does not like openness. Instead we have stage
scenery. Therefore, the outcry of the academicians was demonstrably not heard.
However, the Church hierarchies have splendidly mastered the rules of the game.
They have them in their blood. Firmly and pragmatically defending their corporate
interests, they stand up before us as saintly and fatherly wise. One does not
interfere with the other. It is much more difficult for their secular
competitors. But having recognized their previous mistakes, they are trying with
all their strength. And from this comes the awkward maneuvers from full-speed
backward to full-speed forward and touching reminiscences of conversations about
the structure of the Universe, the erecting of crosses in inappropriate places,
and unfortunate attempts at kissing the interlocutor's hand.
The participants of this game must play it. They are responsible people and
understand that the flourishing and sometimes survival of the institutes
subordinate to them depend on their actions. And thus, the young students are
irrelevant to the politesse. They are without responsibility and prepossessingly
free. And therefore, they express their feelings with sincere directness. And
these feelings should put the Church on guard. In any case, it will hardly find
any great reverence for itself in them.
[return to Contents]
#19
'No grounds for concern' over racist attacks in Russia - migration service
Interfax
Moscow, 20 March: The Federal Migration Service (FMS) does not agree with the
opinion that the level of xenophobia and attacks because of ethnic intolerance
have taken on menacing proportions.
"To say that in Russia foreign citizens are being victimized en masse is stupid.
There are isolated incidents. There are no grounds for concern," the deputy head
of the international and public relations directorate of the FMS, Konstantin
Poltoranin, told Interfax today.
He reported that crimes due to aggressive xenophobia are committed in some
Russian regions.
"Such attacks are an echo of various ill-conceived populist statements which some
of our politicians and officials make," Poltoranin said.
According to him, xenophobic crimes harm the image of the country and are
interpreted negatively in neighbouring countries.
Poltoranin also said that a new subdivision will be created in the FMS which will
work on issues of increasing tolerance.
"The decision has been taking on creating a directorate in the FMS which will
work on issues of tolerance and the integration of foreign citizens. This
directorate will cooperate closely with Russian state structures and will work
with ethnic diasporas and public organizations, including human rights
activists," Poltoranin said.
Director of the Moscow Human Rights Bureau Aleksandr Brod told Interfax today
that from January to mid-March, 31 xenophobic attacks were recorded in Russia; as
a result 10 people were killed and 28 were injured.
Citing the results of monitoring, Brod reported that most aggressive xenophobic
attacks this year have been recorded in Moscow and Moscow Region, Altay
Territory, Vladivostok, Nizhniy Novgorod and Kaliningrad Regions and St
Petersburg.
In Russia this year, Kyrgyz nationals, Koreans, Russians, Uzbeks and people from
Africa have most often been the target of attacks by radical nationalists.
Rights activists have said that activists of radical nationalist organizations
who attack people from the Caucasus and Central Asia, representatives of youth
subcultures and sexual minorities, number tens of thousands in Russia.
At the end of January 2010 the Sova centre, which also monitors xenophobia,
distributed a report which noted that the number of xenophobic attacks in the
Russian Federation has begun to decrease in recent years.
"The year 2009 was the first in more than the six-year history of our monitoring
when the number of incidents connected with racist and neo-Nazi violence has
substantially decreased, although its level remains frighteningly high," it says
in the Sova report.
It notes that in 2008 and 2009 the law-enforcement agencies eliminated the
largest and most aggressive ultra-right-wing groups in Moscow Region.
[return to Contents]
#20
Moscow authorities create map of ethnic tension sites
MOSCOW, March 22 (RIA Novosti)-Moscow authorities will create a map showing the
main areas of ethnic tension in the city, a Russian government daily reported.
Russia has seen a wave of racially motivated crimes since the collapse of the
Soviet Union in 1991. Routine attacks by skinheads and gangs of youths on
foreigners and people with non-Slavic features are a regular occurrence in
Moscow, which hosts many foreign university students, foreign workers and
tourists.
In an interview published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Moscow committee for
interregional relations and national policy chairman Mikhail Solomentsev said
special groups with good knowledge of race-hate hot spots and the necessary
measures to take to prevent flare-ups have already been created. These groups
include representatives from the police and security services, and culture,
education, social and sport departments.
"So far only a rough version of the map is available. When the groups begin to
work in full we will be able to update it on-line," Solomentsev said.
He said there are several such sites in the city which need to be taken under
control and eliminated. The city does not have any districts similar to China
towns where people coming from other countries live together, speaking their own
languages and following their own traditions.
Solomentsev also said that a new draft law prepared by the committee proposes
tougher punishment for racially or religiously motivated crimes.
In February, Moscow City Court sentenced a group of ultranationalist skinheads,
known as the White Wolves, to jail sentences ranging from six to 23 years for a
series of race-hate murders.
Russia's reputation abroad has been badly affected by the racial attacks. This
month South Korea officially classified Russia as a dangerous place for its
nationals to travel to. Seoul issued a temporary travel advisory lasting from
March 11 until May 31 after one South Korean student was killed and another
injured in separate incidents in Moscow and south Siberia in early March.
The U.S. 2009 Annual Report on Human Rights, published on March 11, said the
number of racially or religiously motivated crimes in Russia had declined, but
ethnic discrimination is still a matter of concern.
[return to Contents]
#21
New York Times
March 21, 2010
With Breakdown of Order in Russia's Dagestan Region, Fear Stalks Police
By ELLEN BARRY
MAKHACHKALA, Russia At a certain point last summer, when snipers on rooftops
began picking off police officers, Col. Mukhtar Mukhtarov's wife blocked the door
with her body and refused to let him leave home in his uniform.
For 25 years, it had been one of the great joys of Colonel Mukhtarov's life to
walk the streets in his red-striped police cap. But by last summer all that had
been turned so thoroughly on its head that he quietly went back to his bedroom to
change into civilian clothes.
His son Gassan, a 20-year-old beat officer, has known the job only this way,
thick with fear. He changes in his car outside the station house. Aware that
militants often follow police officers for days before killing them his neck
sometimes prickling with the sense of being watched Gassan Mukhtarov swaps
license plates with friends to make himself harder to track. He is still not
safe. He knows that.
"They've known who I was from the first day," he said.
It is all a measure of how thoroughly order has broken down in the Russian region
of Dagestan, in the North Caucasus. Fifty-eight police officers were killed in
attacks here last year, according to the republic's Interior Ministry, many of
them while running errands or standing at their posts. Last month alone,
according to press reports, 13 officers were killed in bombings and
gangland-style shootings.
The gunmen some combination of Islamist militants, alienated young people,
ordinary criminals and foot soldiers in private armies just melt back into the
city, to be described in the next day's news reports as "persons unknown."
As the number of attacks doubled, to 201 last year from 100 in 2008, the
authorities tried to offer relief. The blue stripes were removed from most police
cars and officers were told they no longer had to wear uniforms on the way to
work. In a weird touch, every traffic officer in Makhachkala (pronounced
ma-HACH-ka-la), the capital city, is now backed up by a riot policeman in
camouflage, Kalashnikov assault rifle at the ready.
Even so, recruits are under pressure from friends and relatives to quit, said
Gassan Mukhtarov, who is a lieutenant. He said he could not really blame them.
"If you had a son, would you let him work as a policeman?" he asked. "I wouldn't
let my own son do it."
The police occupy a miserable place in Russian society, where many citizens see
officers as so corrupt and brutal they prefer to settle their disputes alone. But
no environment is more hostile than the North Caucasus, where occasional clashes
with militants have intensified into something closer to guerrilla warfare.
Russia has been trying to wipe out the militant underground since the late 1990s,
when separatists moved into Dagestan from bases in neighboring Chechnya. But
because Moscow prefers to cast the conflict as a law enforcement problem rather
than a political one, much of the burden of fighting it has been shunted onto the
police, said Alexei V. Malashenko, a Caucasus specialist at the Moscow Carnegie
Center.
That fight has left behind a residue of rage among the public. Reports of
abductions and deaths of civilians are common in the wake of antiterrorism
operations, though in the crowd of masked men who whisk suspects away, it is hard
to say who works for the federal government and who for the police.
In any event, it has stopped mattering. In a culture that prizes revenge,
uniformed police officers are a proxy for all those masked men for the
government itself because they cannot hide.
Magomed Ataranov, 30, came to understand this after five years on the police
force, when he and some other officers trotted over to help a woman who had
fallen on the road. The men were laughing over some triviality, and Mr. Ataranov
is still not sure what happened, but the woman glared up at them from the ground
and said she hoped they would all be killed.
"We were used to it," said Mr. Ataranov, who left the force a year later. "But
from an ordinary woman I didn't expect it."
Lt. Col. Mark V. Tolchinsky, lead spokesman for the republic's Interior Ministry,
said attacks on the police rose last year in response to aggressive antiterrorism
raids. He was not particularly hopeful about the new safety measures, but said
violence had not made it any harder to recruit or retain officers.
"There is no work in Dagestan, if only for that reason," Mr. Tolchinsky said.
"If one of them left us, how would he feed his children? Would he steal? Or would
he go into the forest," where militant groups are headquartered?
"A war has been going on here since 1997," he said. "Maybe it sounds improper to
say, but our workers only leave us dead."
For the Mukhtarovs, 2009 was the year their city began to bristle with enemies. A
21-year-old graduate of the police academy where Colonel Mukhtarov teaches left a
wedding in uniform, remarking to his companion that they should jump in a cab
before someone shot him. Right then, from a passing car, someone fatally shot
him.
Colonel Mukhtarov leaves his uniform at work now, though after 25 years his
profession seems etched into his body the prizefighter's nose, salt-and-pepper
buzz cut, fingers as thick as batteries. The collapse of respect for law
enforcement grieves him, though he acknowledges that the police themselves are
partly to blame because of their brutal tactics in fighting terrorists in the
past decade.
"It won't lead to anything good, the way they interrogate people," he said.
"They're not supposed to tie a person to a chair and beat him to get him to start
talking." Too many young men vanish in antiterrorism operations, he added,
leaving their parents to stammer that "men in masks came and put him in the car."
But it is hard to stay objective when your friends are getting killed. Colonel
Mukhtarov was watching television on a recent Friday night when a news item
flashed on the screen that made him jump into his clothes and run to his car. Two
hatchbacks had pulled up beside the police chief, Akhmed Magomedov, opened fire
on two bodyguards in an escort car and then strafed the chief's Volga with
armor-piercing bullets, leaving him and a driver to bleed to death.
The killing took place on a crowded city street at 10:20 p.m., but the shooters
vanished, untraceable. One witness reported that one of the getaway cars got
stuck in a patch of ice, and several of the gunmen calmly stepped out to push it
clear before driving off.
Colonel Mukhtarov, who had been close to the chief for years, stood for 40
minutes on the sidewalk where he was killed, just taking it in.
His son Gassan was busy that night, and anyway, it is harder to shock him.
"It's a war," Gassan said. "It won't ever end in Dagestan."
He added, "You do start to want to kill some of them."
[return to Contents]
#22
Unemployment Topical In Russia Again - Poll
MOSCOW, March 21 (Itar-Tass) -- Unemployment is once again topical in Russia, the
Russian Public Opinion Study Center (VTsIOM) said.
The share of people who discuss unemployment with their family members, friends
and colleagues grew from 47% in December 2009 to 51% in February 2010.
The number of people preferring not to discuss unemployment increased from 16% to
11%, and the number of those who did not care about unemployment was unchanged,
31-33%.
In fact, the share of Russians who know a lot of unemployed people has been
steadily declining through recent months. The indicator reached its maximum, 26%,
in April 2009, and went down to 17% in February.
However, the prospect of losing one's job still frightens Russians, VTsIOM said.
The dismissal probability index stood at 33 out of 100 points in February and 30
in November-December 2009. The index reached its maximum, 48, in February 2009.
The employment probability index has been unchanged, 47-48 out of 100 points,
since summer 2009. The higher this index is, the easier it is to find jobs. It
was much higher before the economic crisis, 61%, in
October 2008. The index dropped to its minimum, 39 points, in March-April 2009.
The center polled 1,600 people in 140 towns and cities in 42 regions on February
20-21. The error does not exceed 3.4 percent.
[return to Contents]
#23
Russia Silicon Valley should be run not by official but big businessman
MOSCOW, March 21 (Itar-Tass) - A scientific and technological complex on
developing and commercialising new technologies, which will be built in Skolkovo,
should be headed not by an official, but by a member of Russian Big Business,
said first deputy head of the Russian president's office Vladislav Surkov,
heading the working group on setting up the centre.
"As for current work which will be the most important in this big complex of
decisions, this work will be vested with a specially established structure,"
Surkov said, adding that work now in progress "to examine the composition of its
founders".
"This structure will emerge in the near future," Surkov said in an interview with
the "Vesti Nedeli" programme of the Russia TV networks.
According to the president's aide, "it should include both national structures,
institutions of development, research establishments and educational
institutions. To my mind, it should be joined, at some stage, by major
prestigious international partners".
"This structure will enlarge its composition of founders as talks will be
developing, including with foreign participants whose presence is critically
important in this project, since it is their experience precisely that can help
us not to make mistakes.
On the other hand, we need partners who will be for us a direct communication
with the global economy, with the world scientific and technical community of the
highest level and world leading companies in all hi-tech sectors," the
president's aide said.
He emphasised that the choice of the managing director who will run the centre,
is also very important. "I know the Russian president's stand: he believes that
this should be a person, matching the project in the scale and having, on the one
side, huge experience of developing big production facilities and at the same
time, it is desirable for him to be a member of private business, since, it seems
to me, that it is better not to charge an official with this business," Surkov
said.
"I believe that this will be somebody from members of Russian Big Business."
"The president will make the choice," he underlined.
According to Surkov, it is very important that the city should be multi-racial
from the very beginning, so that best specialists from all over the world should
come there to work.
"I believe that if two, three or four Nobel Prize winners do not work in the city
eventually, this will mean that we have botched the task," Surkov said.
"The city should have the headquarters of the largest and most sophisticated
companies," he added.
[return to Contents]
#24
Russia Should Have Several Such Projects As Skolkovo Centre
MOSCOW, March 21 (Itar-Tass) - In future, Russia should have several such
projects as a centre for developing and commercialising new technologies in
Skolkovo, said first deputy head of the Russian president's office Vladislav
Surkov, heading the working group on setting up such a centre for research and
development.
"It is not the easiest time now to take such important decisions, and there will
be only one project for the time being. But I'm sure that there should be several
of them and that in future we can this experience extrapolate," he said in an
interview with the "Vesti Nedeli" programme of the Russia TV networks.
"We have a vast country, and it can develop only with the help of very big
projects," Surkov emphasised. "And this project is commensurate with the country
in scale," he added.
The president's aide called as "quite real" creation of several such complexes.
"The commodity economy cannot feed our country in future. Possibilities of the
commodity economy to raise well-being of our citizens have been exhausted,"
Surkov said.
"What we have in our heads is much more expensive and much more profitable than
what we have in our land: we have many talents, and this is the main Russia's
resource," he noted.
Surkov stressed at the same time that "there is nothing bad" in the commodity
economy as it is. "It is not bad and it is not good, as it is; you ca be an
innovator in the commodity economy, and you can do nothing, squandering natural
resources," the president's aide noted.
"Mineral resources are exhausted, and Russia should transfer to the next level of
civilisation and to the next level of technological development to preserve
definite positions in the world and to be a respected country. It is necessary
that our economy should be based, above all, on intellectual preferences, our
knowledge and on ability to invent new technologies. This is also the question of
political influence," Surkov said.
[return to Contents]
#25
www.russiatoday.com
March 22, 2010
Innovative economy needs business culture overhaul
Hi-tech projects are being pushed as part of Russia's economic diversification,
but the head of the Russian Venture Company, Igor Agamirzyan, says Russia's
business culture needs to be overhauled.
IA: "The demand from the relation for the new technologies, like internet, like
mobile phones, like positioning services, things like that, is huge. But the
local economy doesn't serve this need. And the real problem for the innovation
development, is that there is no real demand from the businesses for their
innovative services, from the large enterprises, for the innovative services. And
for my viewpoint one of the reasons for that is the demand for the innovation in
the business appears only in the competitive environment."
RT: What could be the Russian way of innovative economy?
IA: "We need to position the country in the global environment. We need to
position the areas which are the priorities. Different countries are positioning
their self in different parts of this lifecycle of the products, right. The USA
is present primarily in R&D and sales and marketing, and China covers a huge part
of the production facilities worldwide. Real potential, real added value, for
Russia may be on the early stages on the industrial research and licensing or
exporting products on he global markets. Because it's much marginable, it needs
much skill population, and it is the zone of the competencies which are available
in Russia."
RT: What are the main obstacles on Russia's way to innovative economy?
IA: "One of the problems which exist is that the intellectual property created by
the public funds belongs to the state, and the state, frankly, isn't able to use
this intellectual property, and in many countries the author gets the rights for
the intellectual property he created working for, and being funded by the state,
himself. And that is one of the reasons for the great success."
[return to Contents]
#26
Izvestia
March 22, 2010
Yukos is dead, but its debt lives on
Rosneft repels the attacks of the past. Late last week it became known that a New
York court had nearly blocked its export operations, and a London court froze its
assets in England and Wales. Both decisions were made based on a lawsuit filed by
its former sister company Yukos.
By Varvara Aglamishyan
Rosneft repels the attacks of the past. Late last week it became known that a New
York court had nearly blocked its export operations, and a London court froze its
assets in England and Wales. Both decisions were made based on a lawsuit filed by
its former sister company Yukos.
So far, Rosneft has been successful in countering the strikes. The decision of
the U.S. court has already been suspended, and the freezing of property in
Britain became symbolic more than anything else. But experts believe that the
saga will continue. The scandal surrounding Rosneft's exports could raise the
cost of "black gold" and the price of oil may skyrocket to $100 per barrel,
experts say. For Russia, this is both good and bad. The benefits are evident;
meanwhile, the fact that high oil prices may strengthen the ruble is a
disadvantage, which will make it more difficult for the industrial sector to
recover from the crisis.
Foreign analysts are very actively speculating that the current situation with
Rosneft could raise the global price for oil, from the current $80 per barrel to
$100. Recall that the argument is over $419 million owed by Yuganskneftegaz (due
to Yukos' bankruptcy, this company became a part of Rosneft) to Yukos Capital, a
Netherlands-based subsidiary of Yukos. The sister company is now trying to
recover the debt in The Netherlands, the United States and Great Britain. Last
week it became known that the Federal Court of the State of New York issued an
injunction prohibiting payments in dollars from being made to Rosneft. Payments
for the exports of "black gold" came under threat. However, the injunction was
almost immediately lifted "after Rosneft was given the opportunity to state its
legal case," noted members of the company.
At the March 17 hearings, the Federal Court of the State of New York decided that
it does not have jurisdiction in the case and Yukos Capital has 60 days to prove
that Rosneft has assets in the State of New York. "If no assets are found, the
lawsuit will be completely dismissed," said Rosneft representatives.
The disagreement over Yuganskneftegaz's debt also continues in Great Britain. As
it became known last Friday, London's arbitrary court froze part of Rosneft's
assets on the territory of England and Wales. As was reported by the Britian's
Financial Times newspaper, this applies to the 425 million pounds ($645 million)
in Rosneft's accounts. Currently, the company is trying to appeal the decision.
Analysts that were interviewed by Izvestia believe that the Rosneft saga will not
do any significant harm. Cessation of exports, the company's collapse, debt
recovery -- none of this will happen.
"I don't see any long-term risks to oil supplies or to Rosneft itself," said
Maksim Shein, director of the Analytical Department at the BKS investment
company.
According to Shein, court decisions could be circumvented. For example, if dollar
payments to Rosneft are indeed blocked, it could always agree with another
Russian company and sell oil in rubles.
"Everything that is connected to Yukos has great resonance. But that is a problem
of the government and not of Rosneft. And it will be resolved in a dialogue
between the government and large foreign corporations," said Konstantin Simonov,
director general of the National Energy Security Foundation.
According to Simonov, Western companies want to acquire preferential treatment in
exchange for turning the other way when it comes to the story of Yukos' "legacy."
This is very convenient. Russia's authorities are unhappy with the way the
country's oil-industry officials are investing into the development of
production.
"As a result, foreign access to Russia's deposits may be liberalized," he said.
As for the price of oil, the market has been set for an increase since last year.
"If there is a desire to raise prices, one could always make a mountain out of a
molehill," said Simonov.
[return to Contents]
#27
First Nord Stream pipelay vessel heads for Baltic
MOSCOW, March 22 (RIA Novosti)-The first pipelay vessel started its journey to
the Baltic Sea to begin construction on the Nord Stream pipeline, which will pump
Russian natural gas to Europe, the project operator said on Monday.
The 150 meter-long (492 feet) Castoro 6, refurbished in the Netherlands, will
start laying the pipes in Swedish waters, about 60 km (37 miles) off the coast of
the Swedish island of Gotland, Nord Stream A.G. said.
The 1,220 km-long (758-mile) Nord Stream pipeline will eventually pump 55 billion
cubic meters of gas per year to western Europe, bypassing traditional transit
countries such as Ukraine and Belarus.
Nord Stream will build two pipelines, each with a capacity of 27.5 billion cubic
meters a year, on the Baltic Sea floor stretching from Russia's Vyborg near the
Finnish border to Greifswald on the coast of Germany.
Nord Stream A.G. announced on March 16 that it had secured 3.9 billion euros
($5.3 billion) in financing for the project, covering 70% of the first phase. Gas
transportation on the new line should begin in 2011.
The remaining 30% of the costs are expected to be financed by the Nord Stream
shareholders. Russian energy giant Gazprom holds a 51% stake, German chemical
group BASF/Winterhshall and utility E.ON Ruhrgas each hold 20% stakes and Dutch
energy group Gasunie holds 9%.
[return to Contents]
#28
Putin Calls For Passing From Words To Deeds At Meeting With Clinton - Official
NOVO-OGARYOVO, March 19 (Itar-Tass) -- Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have discussed economic relations,
missile defense, Iran, Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO),
Georgia and Ukraine on Friday, deputy head of the Russian government office Yuri
Ushakov said after the Friday negotiations.
"There was a frank discussion, and the Russian premier stressed that steps taken
by both parties created a favorable atmosphere around Russia-U.S. negotiations,"
Ushakov said. "The need to convert words into deeds was stressed."
"Putin enumerated certain impediments in the bilateral relations, such as the
Jackson-Vanik amendment and the slow Russian admission to the WTO," he said. "The
premier said that the WTO problem could be resolved with a political will of the
American administration. This is the issue that must be removed from the agenda."
"Putin said plainly that the Russian entry into the WTO directly depended on the
political will of the U.S. administration," he said.
As for the Jackson-Vanik amendment, Putin noted that the previous American
administration had promised to annul it. Clinton confirmed the same wish of the
Barack Obama administration. "We are still unaware how soon the amendment may be
repealed," Ushakov said.
Putin and Clinton had a detailed discussion of missile defense issues. "The
missile defense discussion was long. The Russian prime minister reminded the
state secretary about the core of the negotiations held in 2007 - the missile
defense philosophy. Putin indicated how big the progress could have been if the
sides had developed more active cooperation," Ushakov said.
Clinton raised the questions of the Iranian nuclear program and ecology. "Clinton
repeated the U.S. administration's idea that the Iranian nuclear program was a
threat and confirmed the need for sanctions. She also stressed that China was
coming to realize the threat coming from Iran," Ushakov said. "In the opinion of
Putin, a resolution (of the UN Security Council enacting new sanctions against
Iran) is possible. Yet sanctions do not help sometimes. They may be
counterproductive."
"Clinton expressed the U.S. welcome of Putin's interest in environmental issues
and animal rights," Ushakov said. Putin told Clinton about the tiger and leopard
situation in Russia.
"The U.S. proposal to form a list of mutual concerns was the leitmotif of the
meeting," Ushakov said. "In the opinion of Russia, this is a useful idea. We
should lay down the basis for further development of bilateral relations," he
said.
Putin informed Clinton of the Russian position on Georgia and Ukraine. "Clinton
reacted reasonably and listened with interest," he said.
[return to Contents]
#29
Russian Companies Need To Know They Are Welcome To US Market - Putin
NOVO-OGARYOVO, March 19 (Itar-Tass) -- Russian companies need to know that they
are welcome to the U.S. market, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told U.S.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday.
Some Russian companies have been doing business in the United States for a long
time, but they need support, the premier said. "They need a clear message that
they are welcome," he added.
Putin named Norilsk Nickel and Sverstal amongst Russian companies working in the
United States and General Electric and Boeing amongst U.S. companies doing
business in Russia. "These companies need support of the U.S. authorities and the
Russian government. Large companies are waiting for our support," Putin said.
He regretted that the United States ranked eighth by the amount of amassed
investments in Russia. "This is not much," Putin said, suggesting that they
should discuss a possible way out.
Russia-U.S. trade more than halved in 2009, from $36 billion to $16 billion,
Putin said.
"That happened despite the vast opportunities," he said. "There are still certain
questions in the bilateral trade relations. For instance, a number of Russian
companies are under sanctions imposed by the Department of State, and the
Jackson-Vanik amendment has not been abolished."
Putin confirmed the Russian readiness to intensify the interaction with
congressmen and to tell them more about the developments in Russia and the
Russian economy.
The Russian admission to the World Trade Organization (WTO) was also on the
agenda. "We have been negotiating for 17 years. Three items are left, and we keep
pondering that trio," he said. "In fact, these three items do not present a major
problem for the economies of the United States and Russia."
"The United States is a key international partner," Putin said. Moscow and
Washington DC have been coordinating a lot in the previous years, he said. "I
mean the active and rather fruitful fight against terrorism, the
non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the resolution of the most
pressing international conflicts. We are ready to continue this work," Putin
said.
He lauded the U.S. contribution in the work of the Middle East mediating quartet
and regretted that the Friday meeting of the international mediators was held
against the backdrop of an exchange of strikes between Palestinians and Israel.
"Such mechanisms as the quartet must not exist on their own," Putin remarked.
[return to Contents]
#30
Russia May Reduce Its Nuclear Potential - Expert
MOSCOW. March 19 (Interfax) - Alexei Arbatov, the head of the International
Security Center (IMEMO, Russian Academy of Sciences), says Russia may reduce its
nuclear missile potential to a few dozen units in the long-term perspective.
"This final potential, provided its viability is ensured at the launch and on the
flight trajectories, could reach only several dozen units, taking into account
the fact that the loss of even several large cities is unacceptable to modern
developed countries," Arbatov said at the presentation of the Russian weekly
SIPRI-2008 in IMEMO.
Arbatov says the negotiations on nuclear disarmament with regard to the number of
units and modernization programs will not affect the minimal Russian nuclear
restraint potential even in the event of consistent reductions."
"In any case, diplomats in Moscow should take care of that," Arbatov said.
At the same time, "the role of nuclear weapons in ensuring the status and
security of the Russian Federation is highly exaggerated," he said.
"Except for the hypothetical and improbable threat of a large-scale attack by
NATO or China, nuclear weapons don't protect Russia from numerous dangers that
are less large-scale, but more real, because they don't solve its huge economic
and domestic policy problems,' Arbatov said.
Among the real threats Arbatov mentioned international terrorism, the spread of
weapons of mass destruction, and ethnic and religious conflicts.
Arbatov reiterated that giving up nuclear weapons in no case means giving "the
green light to large regional or local wars using conventional weapons or systems
on new physical principles."
"The world without nuclear weapons is not today's world minus nuclear weapons.
It's the international community organized on the basis of principles ensuring
the security of all countries regardless of their size and economic and military
power," Arbatov said.
When asked whether Russia will be able to resist countries such as China after
reducing its nuclear missile potential, Arbatov said: "As China is becoming an
industrial power, its population is concentrating on the coast of the Pacific
Ocean, Guangzhou and some other cities, it's damage would be absolutely
unacceptable to China and so it will not launch a large-scale attack against
Russia because of that."
"One has to be crazy" to get Russia's virgin Siberia and Far East and lose
"something in which trillions have been invested and which made China the second
largest power in the world,' Arbatov said.
"The Chinese leaders are not crazy. By the way, we have a lot to learn from them,
specifically the way they have built their economy and life with the world around
them," the expert said.
At the same time, Arbatov said that does not mean that Russia may be faced with a
Chinese threat in the future.
[return to Contents]
#31
Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozrenie
N10
March 19, 2010
THE RUSSIA-NATO STRATEGY: LEARNING TO JOINTLY WORK AND LOOK TO THE FUTURE
Neither the US, nor NATO are interested in Moscow's increased role in security
issues both in the Euro-Atlantic zone and the CIS and border states zone. That
means differences between the two global powers are kept and will only increase
Author: Alexander Bartosh
The Russia-NATO relations: current status and prospects for the future
The Euro-Atlantic world has so far failed to open their hearts
to Russia's new concept of the European security architecture.
During his recent visit to Moscow NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh
Rasmussen declared that he did not see any necessity in adopting the
treaty submitted by Russia. Obviously, neither the US, nor NATO are
interested in Moscow's increased role in security issues both in the
Euro-Atlantic zone and the CIS and border states zone. Meanwhile,
the US and NATO have been stepping up their joint efforts to achieve
their own goals in the CIS zone, and have been opposing Russia's
activities there by all means. Thus, the two systems' military-
political opposition in the post-Soviet zone is not only kept, but
even increased.
Basically, NATO is seeking to further develop as a US global
domination system through increased activities in the Caucasian,
Middle Eastern, and Asian-Pacific directions. Additionally, the
Arctic vector of NATO's interests has been increasing. These are key
factors for defining strategic interrelations between Russia and
NATO, specifically, the elaboration of a general long-term plan for
providing Russia's national security in a context of its relations
with NATO, and the identification of methods for achieving that
goal.
The 'National Security Strategy for the period up until 2020'
of May 12, 2009, declaring the buildup of an open collective
security system on a legal and contractual basis is a starting point
of elaborating that strategy. The Euro-Atlantic zone is primarily in
the focus of that concept, but it can be spread to Eurasia, too.
Additionally, key provisions of the RF defense concept are also
reflected in the RF Military Doctrine, Russia's main strategic
planning document approved by a Presidential Decree of February 5,
2010.
It is likely that the following key factors influence Russia's
positioning in the world and its security. Firstly, it is the US
search for global leadership and the use of NATO's consolidated
potential in US interests. For that purpose Washington initiated a
complex of meticulously planned measures designed to pass global
functions to the NATO force potential despite the existing
international law norms and regulations, and to provide for NATO
member states' military infrastructure consistent approximation of
the Russian border, including the NATO eastwards extension program.
Secondly, it is China's foreign policy and national development
vector that presuppose a 'creeping' penetration of Chinese citizens
into Russia's Far East. Additionally, increased tension may arise
here due to possible contradictions over the energy resource
delivery issue. Thirdly, it is international terrorism. Its threat
increases manifold if global powers attempt using it for their
specific purposes.
Under those conditions, the Russia-NATO strategic relations
must serve settling a dual purpose mission. On the one hand, Russia
must continue discussing strategic issues with the US. On the other
hand, Russia must accumulate resources for increasing its political,
diplomatic and military potential that would pose a counterbalance
to NATO, so that avert any possible attempts of NATO to speak with
Russia from the position of strength.
The strategy must take into account that fact that in the
course of time Russia's emerging movement eastwards might influence
its European identity status. Both NATO and the US must also think
of possible aftereffects Russia's re-orientation towards the East.
It is no secret that China is extremely interested in using Russia's
potential against the US increasing penetration in Asia, as its
resources are vital for the Chinese economy development.
Thus, key global areas, strategic communications and resources
have become major global opposition objects. Ownership of those
objects will determine the geopolitical status of civilizations and
states; their development rates; their internal and external
security; their sovereignty status.
So, despite the above differences in approach, we could claim
there are objective prerequisites for developing a productive
dialogue between Russia, on the one hand, and the Euro-Atlantic
zone, on the other, that could yield new coordinated solutions for
the Euro-Atlantic security architecture.
Building stable relations with China is equally important. In a
broader sense, that is Russia's sticking to a reasonable cooperation
strategy with such global powers as the US, EU, China and some other
countries and international organizations; its further search of
allies and partners; its defining its own place in the civilization
dialogue.
Russia has its own strategic resources due to its unique
geopolitical position as a balance between the West and the East,
two global force centers and civilizations; the peculiarities of its
geographic, historic and cultural landscapes; its natural riches;
its great power nuclear status; its still high educational, research
and scientific potential, and its traditional involvement into
settling global development issues.
It is important that Russia's strategic resources are
insufficient for achieving the declared dual purpose mission. So,
the strategy is designed to provide for the efficient use of
available resources by means of the 'resources-goal' intermediate
task tactics.
Nowadays there is no doubt that Russia's course for building
Russia-NATO relations on a non-confrontation and pragmatic approach
is correct. That course is based on compromises; it excludes either
euphoria or repulsion in mutual relations. In the early 1990's a
number of Russian politicians believed in the possibility of making
NATO transform from a military-political bloc into a humanitarian
organization, and persuading NATO command in the unreasonableness
and even danger of the Alliance's extension policy. That was the
basis of Russia's strategy towards NATO. However, those 'rosy
dreams' were shattered by NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia,
granting membership to new alliance member states, and expanding the
bloc's military infrastructure eastwards, including plans for
deploying NATO air defense system near the Russian border.
That was why a pragmatic approach based on a sober estimate
prevailed in the Russia-NATO relations in the new century. It is
clear that we cannot expect a breakthrough in the Russia-Alliance
relations in the near future; our cooperation will primarily have a
declarative character for quite a time. Taking into account NATO's
tough stance that 'Russia will never get the right to veto NATO
decisions', there is no ground for Russia to expect an early
achievement of its most vital issues. Moreover, NATO's increasing
globalization of interests is actually squeezing out Russia to the
outskirts of the process of making most important international
security decisions. Seeking to fix that status quo, NATO member
states demonstratively ignore Russia's new proposals for the
European security architecture. Moreover, Brussels insists that
those proposals are directed against NATO despite our claims that
they are designed to strengthen international cooperation.
[return to Contents]
#32
U.S. Dominates Global Arms Trade; Russia's Share Shrinking - Expert
MOSCOW. March 19 (Interfax-AVN) - The United States remains the world's biggest
arms seller, while Russia is significantly lagging behind, Natalia Kalinin of the
Russian Institute of Global Economy and International Relations said on Friday.
"The U.S. has been leading for years, with its arms sales taking up 50% of global
sales. Russia has been second for many years, but Russian sales account for
approximately 30% of the U.S. sales. So, our second place in terms of money looks
fairly nominal," she said at the presentation of the Russian version of the SIPRI
Yearbook 2008 titled, "Armaments, Disarmament and International Security."
"The past two years saw Russia slipping to third, fourth and even possibly fifth
place (in the global rating of arms exporters)," Kalinina said.
The method used by SIPRI specialists in rating any particular country in global
arms export is incorrect and misrepresents the real state of affairs, she said.
In particular, according to the SIPRI 2009 report, the U.S. share on the global
arms market is 30%, and Russia's 23%, she said. "The actual arms trade figures
are different," Kalinina said.
[return to Contents]
#33
Washington Post
March 20, 2010
Editorial
Has President Obama outwaited Russia on nuclear control?
THE LONG delay in the completion of a new arms-control treaty between the United
States and Russia has been, in part, a game of expectations. Both sides know that
Russia needs a deal far more than does the United States, to bolster its withered
status as a superpower and because it probably cannot sustain its current nuclear
arsenal. But Russian strongman Vladimir Putin seems to have been betting that
President Obama, who has made nuclear arms control a priority and who has, to
date, few foreign policy accomplishments, may want the treaty more than he does.
So Moscow has been stalling for months on completing the deal while trying to
extract American concessions.
In Moscow on Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the two
governments were finally "on the brink" of an accord. If that means Mr. Obama has
managed to outwait Mr. Putin, the president will have reason to celebrate -- and
more clout as he enters the summit on nuclear security that he has convened for
Washington next month.
The main outlines of the deal have been known for months: Russia and the United
States will each reduce their active nuclear arsenals by about a quarter, from
2,200 warheads to about 1,600. That will be accompanied by a reduction in
delivery systems, such as intercontinental missiles and bombers. The reduction
would take the two countries back to where their arsenals stood in the early
1960s and far below the levels of the Cold War, when there were 10,000 warheads
on each side.
One sticking point has been verification. Russia has wanted to weaken the regime
built into the START treaty, which expired in December; in particular it has
wanted to stop providing data from missile tests it conducts. Though some experts
believe technological advances mean that the United States could collect the data
in other ways, a dilution of these procedures could make it impossible for the
treaty to clear the Senate, where it will need 67 votes.
Mr. Putin also has sought to insert controls on U.S. missile defense into the
treaty -- particularly following an ill-timed announcement by Romania in January
that it would be a host of the European interceptor system that the Obama
administration is planning. Though those missile defenses are aimed at Iran,
Russia continues to oppose them, in large part because of Mr. Putin's desire to
prevent any U.S. military presence in the countries of the former Soviet bloc.
This is an issue that really matters: The continued development and deployment of
missile defenses arguably means more to U.S. security than a new nuclear weapons
deal with Russia. Mr. Obama agreed last summer to the notion that there is a link
between offensive and defensive strategic weapons; the administration has been
ready to accept language to that effect in the preamble of the treaty. But any
provision that would limit U.S. flexibility on missile defenses or their
deployment in Europe would be unacceptable. If, as Ms. Clinton suggests, an
agreement really is at hand, we trust Mr. Putin has finally accepted that
reality.
[return to Contents]
#34
Ukraine's new leadership seeks new gas deal with Moscow
MOSCOW, March 22 (RIA Novosti)-Ukraine's new authorities are seeking a new gas
deal with Moscow, offering Russia a stake in the Ukrainian gas transportation
system in exchange for lower natural gas prices, a business paper reported on
Monday.
According to Vedomosti, Ukraine has already prepared a bill allowing Russia
access to the management of its national gas transportation network, which
currently accounts for about 80% of Russian natural gas exports to Europe.
Ukraine's new President Viktor Yanukovych needs to revise a long-term gas deal
signed by ex-premier Yulia Tymoshenko and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin
in early 2009, which made Russian gas expensive for Ukraine and further strained
Ukraine's meager finances.
Ukraine's Fuel and Energy Minister Yuriy Boiko is set to visit Moscow this week
with gas issues to top the agenda of his meetings with Russian officials, the
paper said.
However, Russia is unlikely to agree to a gas price reduction without getting
something in return. The main option is to allow Russia to manage the Ukrainian
gas transportation system, the paper quoted a source close to Boiko as saying.
It is high time for Ukraine to deal with its gas transportation network as the
construction of the Kremlin-backed Nord Stream and South Stream gas pipelines
bypassing Ukraine will marginalize the ex-Soviet republic, the paper said.
The details of an international consortium to manage Ukraine's gas transportation
system are not yet known but the source said that Russia, Ukraine and the
European Union are expected to have equal stakes in it.
Ukraine's gas transportation system is Europe's second largest gas pipeline
network and the main route for Russian natural gas supplies to European
consumers. In early 2000, Kiev and Moscow discussed the possibility of creating a
gas transport consortium with the involvement of European partners to manage and
modernize Ukraine's Soviet-era gas pipeline network.
However, when West-leaning President Viktor Yushchenko came to power in Ukraine
as a result of the so-called "orange revolution" in 2004, the project was put on
hold.
Russia has consistently tried to get a stake in the Ukrainian gas pipeline
network to modernize the system and ensure uninterrupted gas supplies to Europe.
Ukraine has so far resisted these attempts, saying this would jeopardize its
sovereignty.
[return to Contents]
#35
Progress (UK)
www.progressives.org.uk
March 18, 2010
Yanukovych/Nixon
By Andrew Wilson
Andrew Wilson is senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign
Relations, and the author of The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation (Yale, expanded
third edition, 2009)
Like generals fighting the last war, much of the western press reported the
recent Ukrainian election as a battle between the 'pro-western' Yuliya Tymoshenko
and the 'pro-Russian' Viktor Yanukovych. But this election was not the great
existential drama produced by the last vote in 2004
Then everything - foreign policy direction, internal regional tensions, even the
very existence of Ukrainian democracy - seemed at stake, and the fixing of the
vote by Yanukovych's supporters provoked the 'Orange Revolution' that swept
Viktor Yushchenko to power.
Events have moved on. All revolutions disappoint, and the Orange Revolution
disappointed more than most. Its leaders have preferred fighting each other to
getting things done. Tymoshenko served twice as prime minister in 2005 and
2007-10, but by the time of the great gas crisis in January 2009 had clearly made
her peace with Russia. She and Putin got along just fine, making jokes in public
at Yushchenko's expense. To use Mrs Thatcher's famous phrase about Gorbachev,
Putin clearly thought Tymoshenko was someone he could 'do business with'; and the
Ukrainian media constantly speculated about what exactly that business might be.
A deal on gas? This or that privatisation deal? Meanwhile, the Kremlin and
Gazprom had a very public falling out with several of the business 'oligarchs'
who backed Yanukovych. Having got their fingers so badly burned in 2004, Putin's
people still thought of the charisma-free Yanukovych as a serial loser, until
very late in the election campaign.
But the other lesson that Russia drew from 2004, when its attempt to back
Yanukovych with overwhelming force had back-fired, was not to put all its eggs in
one basket. Medvedev's notorious open letter to Yushchenko in the summer of 2009
was designed to isolate his type of 'anti-Russian' politics and define the rules
of the game for a 'primary' for Russian favour amongst the other candidates in
the race. Tymoshenko and Yanukovych were not the only ones to play along: several
of the minor candidates went further and took Russian money and airtime.
Both Tymoshenko and Yanukovych talked of 'resetting' a more pragmatic
relationship between Ukraine and Russia. But both had also learnt the key
Ukrainian lesson from 2004, that there is little electoral mileage in being seen
to be a Russian puppet - Ukrainian national interests should come first. They
were further apart on some specific issues: Tymoshenko talked of resurrecting the
EU gas deal signed in 2009, Yanukovych favoured solving the problem at the
Russian end by asking for a lower supply price; Yanukovych was more willing to
renew the lease on Russia's Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol after its expiry in
2017. But both played the game of balance between Russia and the West - albeit
with Tymoshenko a little closer to the West and Yanukovych a little closer to
Russia.
So what does this mean now that Yanukovych has won? During the election he played
identity politics, seeking votes in east Ukraine by attacking NATO and promoting
the Russian language. But his first foreign trips were first to Brussels and then
to Moscow in the same week. In fact, in Moscow he got a version of Marlon
Brando's wedding day speech from The Godfather - 'why did you not come to us
first?' - while Putin tried to bounce him into rash commitments on joining the
customs union between Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. Yanukovych played a
straight bat, though he surprised many on his return to Kiev by proposing a law
preventing Ukraine from joining 'military alliances' - though, depending how it
was drafted, that could exclude the Russia-dominated CSTO as well as NATO.
Ukraine is more likely to balance between east and west than rush back to Moscow.
There are even some in Ukraine who think that Yanukovych could be a 'Ukrainian
Nixon'. Like Nixon in China, because he is more reassuring to Russia and to
Ukraine's Russian-speaking population, he could actually take Ukraine further
towards Europe in the long run than Yushchenko ever managed.
A different east European analogy could be Aleksander Kwasniewski, who was
similarly distrusted by the Solidarity right when he became President of Poland
in 1995, but who took Poland into NATO in 1999 and the EU in 2004 (though none
would suggest things might happen in Ukraine that fast). Yanukovych's supporters
also claim that he has a good record of no-nonsense delivery on bread and butter
issues.
Unfortunately, Yanukovych, like Kwasniewski, is surrounded by too many
representatives of the old guard, men who held power under president Leonid
Kuchma (1994-2004) or were prominent during Yanukovych's brief return as prime
minister in 2006-07. New prime minister Mykola Azarov was then notorious for
abusing the VAT system to reward friends and punish enemies: there was even a
word coined in Ukrainian to describe the process - Azarovshchina . The same
people are back in charge of the energy sector, which has been Ukraine's main
source of corruption in recent years. Yanukovych has also trampled on the
constitution to fast-forward the creation of his new government.
So maybe the analogy with Nixon is too close for comfort. But if the right
incentives are in place, the West may have someone it can also do business with.
[return to Contents]
#36
The Guardian
March 22, 2010
The Imedi TV hoax makes one thing clear: Georgia's president is out of control
Serious debate prior to the forthcoming elections is impossible when our media
are full of spy mania and witch hunts
By Salome Zourabichvili
Salome Zourabichvili was Georgian former foreign minister from 2004 to 2005, and
is now an opposition politician
If there is one thing we have all come to learn about Georgia's president,
Mikheil Saakashvili, it is that he never knows when to stop. Like a child
confronted by a mountain of candy, he will gorge himself until he is sick.
And so, when division among the opposition suggested that his United National
Movement party would sweep all before it in the forthcoming Tbilisi city
elections, due on 30 May, he went one huge step further.
On Saturday 13 March, any Georgian who happened to switch channels to catch the
main 8pm news would have been confronted by his fantastical vision: the war has
started, Russian fighter bombers are strafing the capital, their tanks are
rolling towards us, while part of the opposition is actively collaborating with
the invaders and ready to accept a future as a satellite of the Kremlin. Barack
Obama has made a pro forma statement of support, Europe is silent and Saakashvili
has sent an appeal to western partners: he might be dead or in hiding, and the
army has defected...
In Tbilisi, the panic spread immediately. Emergency services and the cell phone
network were overwhelmed, police could not answer emergency calls, and people
tried to escape. In the towns closer to the frontline the situation was worse.
It did not matter that the faked broadcast was made from heavily edited archive
material. If a national TV station tells you that you are perhaps minutes from
death as a result of a stray bomb or an artillery duel, you do not notice what
the weather is like in the background of the report.
Of course, just before it started and immediately after it ended the Imedi TV
channel told us the whole thing was a simulation. But Georgians are like
everybody else: most of them don't give the TV news their full attention until
something really startling comes on. And you do not get much more startling than
the claim that your country is about to be crushed under a Russian boot.
The truth is now plain, we were all subject to an experiment in collective
psychology as part of an attempt to warn citizens about the disaster that would
follow if we used our democratic rights to support opposition candidates in the
local elections.
The whole thing was illegal. It is a criminal act in Georgia to knowingly
broadcast falsehoods as though they were news. And we know that Imedi's
executives considered and dismissed this, apparently on the instructions of the
president himself.
Imedi is no ordinary TV channel. Whoever may own it, it is clear that the
president controls it. (And the truth is we do not know who owns it, because the
story we were told, that it was in the hands of a subsidiary of the state
investment fund of the gulf emirate of Ras Al-Khaimah, has now been denied, in
blunt terms, by that country's rulers.)
Georgians are used to propagandistic television. But Imedi takes that to a whole
new level. Managed by Saakashvili's former chief of staff, in the last six months
it has accused the patriarch of the Orthodox church of being a dupe for Russian
intelligence, smeared our leading opera singer (using crudely edited film) in the
same way, told brazen lies about the president's popularity and now, the lie of
all lies, told us we are at war.
We have gone from having one or two pieces of fakery in each bulletin to faking
the whole thing and whoever is responsible for this violation of journalistic
ethics should be held accountable to the law.
But the abuse of the media is merely a symptom, it is not the cause. At the root
of all this is the president himself, and his increasingly erratic personal rule
and elevation of caprice into a principle of government. Saakashvili is
displaying his incapacity to be a reliable and trusted leader for his country and
for our democratic partners in the west. Indeed the person who must admire him
most is now Vladimir Putin: under Saakashvili Georgia looks irresponsible,
commanded by an hysterical leader staging fake wars, seeking to hold elections in
a climate of fear and generally making it plain that only fools would be willing
to sign something that obligates military assistance, such as the North Atlantic
treaty.
To make it worse, Saakashvili is ready to enhance the pro-Russian forces that do
exist in Georgia, and to marginalise truly pro-western and democratic forces, in
order to ram home his claim of "apres moi, le deluge".
In this environment our elections are in serious doubt: hysteria does not allow
for a normal electoral campaign; free media have been buried by this scandalous
submission to political orders; spy mania and witch hunts are replacing serious
debate on Georgia's political choices.
Saakashvili plans to travel to Washington DC in April to attend a summit on
eliminating nuclear weapons. The US authorities should let him come. But when he
gets there he needs to be told, bluntly and publicly, that enough is enough.
While the US and the EU pump billions of dollars into Georgia's economy they
cannot let him get away with his manipulations and maniacal behaviour any longer.
[return to Contents]
#37
Russia's Liberals Have To Make Their Voice Heard, Take a Stand
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
March 16, 2010
Interview with Igor Yurgens by Roza Tsvetkova; place and date not given: "''For
How Long Must We Be Byzantium?' The InSoR Director Told NG Why the Vision of a
Relatively Cloudy future for the Country Was Created"
The InSoR director is certain that the alternative to integration with NATO and
the EU is only China
Barely had it appeared before InSoR's February report "Russia in the 21 st
Century: Vision for the Future" immediately gave rise to a wave of criticism
among experts and political pundits. Roza Tsvetkova, executive editor of
NG-Politika, decided to ascertain from Igor Yurgens, director of the Social
Development Institute (as pblished) and an author of the sensational political
essay, directly what goal was being pursued by the creators of the "Vision for
the Future" and why it had ended up being on the one hand quite fuzzy, and on the
other, so categorical.
(Tsvetkova) Igor Yuryevich, an attack on the not-unknown InSoR (Contemporary
Development Institute) report has been conducted from all fronts. Why, do you
think?
(Yurgens) I believe it is this that we were seeking. Because the essay irritates
some people even as a genre. Here we go, just another manifesto, just another
Campanella's City of the Sun, give us specifics. But the point is that we do not
want to give either specifics or some road maps! What would people have said if
we had written such and such about elections, governors.... They would have said:
"What are up to, are you trying to destabilize the situation now?"
We write specially that this is a vision for the future. This will take our
national leadership 20 years or 5 or 10, we do not specify, but we say here that
the national leadership does not have a huge store of time for all this. We
believe this not from the degree even of the material prosperity of society,
which has deteriorated since the crisis, but from the degree of moral frame of
mind of the thinking part of the citizenry. Believe me, I have never before seen
such gloom, unbelief in people.
I repeat, we wrote an essay, but we did not set a strict framework. Now critics
from the right and the left are saying that well, yes, all of us, except for
Eurasians or extreme communist-minded folks, want what you wrote about, but how
is this to be achieved?
I assure you that by the end of the year each critic will have on his desk a
700-page two-volume work, which prescribes for each section of the first report
how this is to be achieved, if, of course, this is what we want. At this time we
are simply asking: do you want to live in the sort of country about which we have
written? This is why it is that something has begun everywhere. But we feel
absolutely comfortable at this time, we are in an excellent frame of mind because
a sufficient number of people whom we respect, who are respected by the active
part of the citizenry, have said "yes". We feel that we have accomplished an
important mission: there is some quiet background--all's well here, we have a
ruling party, the political system has certainly coped with the crisis, and some
rough patches at the Moscow, Dagestani, and many other elections many for the
time being be ignored. And we have stirred up this pond scum in this mire of
tranquility. Debate has begun, this is exactly what we wanted.
(Tsvetkova) This was a provocation, that is?
(Yurgens) An intellectual provocation, to see who's worth what, who stands for
what, and who wants what. This is now clear, major reports with their criticisms
are being written from every quarter. And this is first-class, we will collate
all this and take it into consideration. Now, returning to the 700 pages. The
first section of our CIS efforts is out--up to the time of the start of the
Medvedev presidency in this structure. And on the day that your supplement
appears, we present a similar view on a total restructuring, reformation, of the
financial system. A report of roughly the same length on local government and an
improvement in the political situation in the sense of democracy from below is
being prepared. We will think in accordance with the proposals that we are
receiving from folks about how to describe what, generally, we described in our
book Democracy for Russia From Above. The idea is simple--to strengthen True
Russia as a center-left party, begin some movements both with the left and with
the right, admit to parliamentary activity, in accordance with what the
president, said some renewed right flank, and so forth. This is all that is
already instrumentally ready.
In addition, the economic section of our proposals--this is the easiest. We don't
believe that our government suffered some big failures in putting out the fire.
But we are playing as if for a long match, as it were, to what extent will we
contract the public sector, about which Shuvalov speaks? How will we reprivatize
the very large assets that, owing to the crisis, passed to the state? We will
talk about this also.
The biggest and most interesting section for me personally are relations with the
EU and NATO. Because there are no guarantees that, unless we integrate in these
communities, we will not go back. Why did Khrushchev's reform not work, and, for
all that, Gorbachev's did move ahead in some way? On account of the degree of
inclusion in world processes. Because the country under Khrushchev was still
closed to the world, and this is why it was crushed and returned to
neo-Stalinism. Gorbachev could no longer be turned back, we were already
integrated in the outside world--by our sales of oil and gas and by everything
else. Strictly speaking, we are faced with the same paradigm today: unless we
integrate valuably and economically, as in our CIS space, with the Europeans, we
will be left with the route to China. Which would be costlier for the citizenry,
from my perspective. And, in addition, it has not been proven in terms of
civilization that we are compatible.
(Tsvetkova) To join NATO and the EU it is necessary that not only we ourselves
but the other side also want this....
(Yurgens) Going around some European capitals specially at this time, I see how
much good will is displayed toward us by the leaders of the main countries. And
in the United States, by the bulk of the Obama administration also.
(Tsvetkova) Good will simply in words or in deed also?
(Yurgens) There are many parts in the American position that for the objective
observer indicate that this is quite a proud country, with the Chinese standing
in line behind it, prepared for the restoration and creation of partnership with
us for the sake of modernization: the attitude toward Georgia, Ukraine, very
well, if this so irritates you, we'll step back, we'll remove the missile
defenses, we'll take the F-22 fighters out of service with the US Army, their
manufacture is ending, and much else. But we also need to open up, take account
of some of their criticisms and concerns. For they also have a great-power
complex, which we once had, more profound, what is more. But they are prepared to
build relations with us. This determination, this should not even be doubted, is
demonstrated by Sarkozy, Berlusconi--there's nothing more even to be said here.
The main nucleus, which constitutes the political leadership of the European
Union and NATO, is prepared to work for an improvement in relations with Russia,
for further integration. We, on the other hand, have already negotiated the
agreement on partnership and cooperation, which is a very serious act.
(Tsvetkova) What else do we need, then?
(Yurgens) First, our own understanding of what we want. Second, the national
leadership has its own notions of what is meant by stabilization,
destabilization, and at what pace we may go the route of democratization. And it
seems to me that here is no unity on these issues at the top. President Medvedev
is undoubtedly for a faster pace of rapprochement with the West, democratization,
and humanization of the situation in Russia, some clans of security officials,
fuel-and-power engineers, agriculturalists, they are for a considerably slower
pace for all this.
(Tsvetkova) You speak about clans, meaning primarily ex-President Vladimir Putin?
(Yurgens) No, this is not what I think. All countries on the slightest pretext
immediately say: this is all Putin. No, all is not entirely so! Each president
has his time. Putin was the representative of a certain group of people. They had
to introduce stability to the country, which had all but disintegrated after
1998. It had the war with Chechnya, terror, which it subsequently won. Putin
stabilized the situation in the country very well, his eight years were largely
brilliant years. Can you name so successful a period of anyone else?
(Tsvetkova) Why, then, is there "such unprecedented despondency," as you yourself
remarked?
(Yurgens) Because the theme continues without forward development, without social
lifts, without a change of faces, without some energy. From where did we get such
golden boys, whom it is impossible to shift? Look at Mutko! They tell him, go, he
says in response, no, I will not, without me Russian sports would be worse off.
What sort of response might people, from the shop assistant to the professor,
have to this? The MVD? We have stabilized and cannot move anyone? Why not? There
was a time of stabilization, no doubt about it, but each stabilization is for
what? For forward progress. Something has to be resolved both in terms of pace of
modernization and in pace of rapprochement with the West. Clearly, two trends
have emerged: one--do nothing and defend what has been gained, personally gained
included. The second--let's forgo if only something personal for forward
progress. For our children, so that the country be part of a civilized society,
not be friends only with Hugo Chavez and North Korea. And it's here that we have
the divide. Having said "A," the president should undoubtedly say the remaining
letters of the alphabet. The program that he has sketched cannot be implemented
in two years, clearly, this is a long program. He needs to run in 2012, at least.
The rest, it seems to me, will depend on us also. Everything has been said, all
the cards are on the table. Either we will without any trials or errors submit to
misgivings--oh, nothing will work out--or we'll say, no, the country has a
chance, friends, resources, interesting choice structures, if among the friends
something goes wrong and the enemies of the friends within the friends prevail,
we have great China, the SCO, India, that is, we always have alternatives, and we
will survive, all the same.
(Tsvetkova) Time to recall the tale of the two frogs that ended up in the milk.
(Yurgens) Yes, one way or another, we'll churn up the cream, if you like. How
should this be initiated and by whom? No employee, male or female, will do this
until their backs are to the wall. But this is what I would not want, this is
quite a dangerous path. So come on, then, thinking part of the citizenry, through
argument, through quarrels, through disputes let's express our support for some
way of the development of events. I call on my supporters to support Medvedev's
propositions, to call on him to display determination and mental fortitude and to
run and implement his program.
(Tsvetkova) Why, then, this prolonged intrigue? After all, the president should
declare his desire to stay on for a second term also, but all we have is a
nonstop two-man game.
(Yurgens) Why must we heed the mood? We are now speaking about institutions.
About backstage dealings, who has appointed whom and by virtue of some
arrangements, we remember all this, of course, from the Yeltsin times, and about
Putin's loyalty, particularly in his first term, to all Yeltsin's people also.
But for how long do we have to be Byzantium?! We have a person who has done such
and such, a president who has put forward a program. If you support it, go and
vote "for," if you are against, vote accordingly. And it will all be quite
simple, no manipulations as a result.
We say: we need to go forward, to 2012. There is a program, we can reinforce it,
add to it. Not only the InSoR can do this, there is a mass of institutes, vary
smart "name" people with, who also preside over various think tanks. We can and
should craft some consensus modernization program, we will do so. You, Mr
President, spoke about modernization, find in yourself the strength and
determination, run and implement! We would fully and responsibly assist. And
there'd be no more time to argue with those that say: modernization, yes, but I
shall not participate in it with this makeup of such and such (I'm now speaking
partially about Civic Force, they have very big unrealistic demands on the
country as it is now). It would be necessary to join in this effort right now.
Or the second, Eurasian, protective, conservative position. Which insists that
there should be a great army and a strong fuel and energy complex, including a
kind of weapon and lever in activity in the foreign arena, and an orientation
toward China, this is history that is considerably more comprehensible to us, and
they are full of money and developing very rapidly. If they are consolidating
more rapidly and to a greater extent, then, so be it. And in that case the
intellectuals should not bemoan the fact that they had no opportunity. You had
everything--the president is for you, the programs have all been written, and you
yourselves, seemingly, are advocating this, but when you are told, come on, come
with us, write, appeal, there is whining and moaning: this will never work out, I
haven't the power to do anything. But with them, everything is within their
power, apparently.
(Tsvetkova) You are not claiming that you are the chief ideologists and that what
you have written in your reports is the truth in the last instance?
(Yurgens) Absolutely not. Liberals in the United States, according to opinion
polls and the estimates of smart people, are only 15%. The rest of the population
is very conservative, Americans don't move much, and where they go to vote, for
Republicans or Democrats, this is highly questionable. But America is a great
country here. With us the intelligentsia, which also is around 15-20%, it cannot
represent the predominant viewpoint, it can support this, say and prove that it
is this that is their way, fight for it intellectually. Give it a chance to show
its paths of development.
The divides have been determined, we need only to choose the development
scenarios
(Tsvetkova) All the same, there is a sense of some prevailing force, which is
preventing, does not desire, advancement. What might prompt this chunk of
reluctance to move forward? For if we are completely honest, the word
"modernization" has still not really acquired a meaning.
(Yurgens) The genesis of the resistance is clear. After the Chechen war, after
the mafiosi began to come to power in absolutely democratic fashion in a number
of provinces, the vertical integration was in need of some pivot, a ruling party.
This party was formed, vertical integration was consolidated on the basis of
actual events. We lived for eight years this way, but it is felt that the youth,
intellectuals, liberals want something different. Why is it necessary to suppress
the small shoots of dissidence that, in actual fact, in no way destabilize the
situation? Why is it necessary to continually try to intimidate folks with an
orange revolution, which, it has turned out, is a myth, but which is allegedly
together with the CIA on the point of blowing everything up. Blowing up whom?
These needless fears and phobias in part of this elite, pro-state-absolutist,
state-magisterial, are partly honest, but partly defense of its own interests,
positions, and earnings.
Our response was as follows: in a crisis the social contract of sorts, unspoken,
unwritten, but absolutely clear--an annual average 9% rise in disposable
household income after inflation, taxes, and all payments, and in the 2000-2008
period it truly was like this--so, then, in a crisis period it is being
reconsidered. Whereas hitherto it was good for me, and to hell with it, I could
every year purchase a stove, a vehicle, and so forth, now it is once again
necessary to take a look at the social contract, we need once again to afford
people an opportunity to voice alternative viewpoints, we need to find opinion
leaders, otherwise the Vladivostok, Irkutsk, and Pikalevo events will multiply,
and you'll not hold them back by a monolithic bureaucracy.
No one is calling for a deterioration in the life of the citizenry, God forbid.
It is only the last cynics of the Lenin school that believe that the worse, the
better. Let's seek these social lifts, the possibility of having one's say and
organizing real movements, finding alternatives, and converging with those where
there is more civilization.
(Tsvetkova) Is there movement from the expert community, from some part of
society, upward, is there up there, at the top, an understanding of your ideas
and a desire to further this?
(Yurgens) If you look at the personnel makeup, such people as Shuvalov, Zhukov,
Nabiullina, Golikova, Khristenko, and Dvorkovich, I could go on, are people of
this ideology, this education. They understand, of course, the difficult problems
that they would subsequently encounter and are already encountering below. Some
of these problems seem gigantic and insoluble, but they, these people, are
absolutely prepared for dialogue with society and are not closing themselves off
from it. Yes, we have supporters in power, beginning with the president himself.
(Tsvetkova) InSoR is identified in society as the president's team. You just as
publicly disavow this. Has the president responded in some way to your report?
(Yurgens) We sent the president the report long before we made it public. And
Medvedev said in response to a question about our report at a recent meeting with
chief editors of the news media that he agrees with some things in it, with
others, he does not. This evaluation is sufficient for us, it says: your
viewpoint is legitimate.
(Tsvetkova) This was not a political commission from Medvedev, that is?
(Yurgens) Not once has Dmitriy Anatolyevich since the moment he formed the
institute in March 2008, became chairman of the board of trustees, and said at
that time: don't toady to power, write what you see fit, write critically, not
once has he set any specific assignments. There have sometimes been
requests--interpret such-and-such a problem, NATO, the EU, analyze unemployment,
make a swift evaluation of this or the other. I sense that we have guessed what a
young president of the Internet generation needs. Whence all these four "i's" and
so forth. This was not an assignment, and we have no confirmation that it was
this wording that has been employed by the speechwriters but we know the people,
we see the chunks in the wording, the thoughts. We are out in front, helping word
some things, it seems.
(Tsvetkova) Your institute was just about Medvedev's first order of business in
the expert field. This coincides in time with his governance of the country also.
How much has Dmitriy Medvedev himself changed?
(Yurgens) I believe that he is now more sure of himself, he has acquired a better
and keener knowledge and understanding of his Western counterparts. I believe
that the Georgian events, which all but torpedoed our relations with the West,
and Sarkozy's reaction to them, and the swift and positive attempt at a
resolution of the problem at that stage, and subsequently all these other
consultations, they induced in him a belief that there are in the West many
friends and people that sympathize with Russia. On the other hand, this lent him
a certain dignity. He gained a better knowledge, although he knew quite a lot
from his work in the administration and the government, of the aspects of work
with the security officials, who belong only to the president in terms of
jurisdiction. He has worked with international subject matter, and what we have
heard in the course of his negotiations with the EU, with Obama, indicates that
he has matured considerably here and continues to grow. There is now more
confidence in his tone also....
(Tsvetkova) He at times appears considerably tougher than his former self.
(Yurgens) Yes, the comments to Basargin or Kudrin for their slight discourtesies
toward their colleagues or groups of the citizenry indicate that psychologically
he is ready for the big stage.
Now about a question that they have both aired on several occasions. For the
Russian intellectual with a sense of his own dignity this is not entirely the
right response, we expect more clarity and precision. We all know full well what
both have in mind. Ultimately, decide here because not only your future but the
country's future also depends on this. Thinking people cannot be misled by
30-second sound bites on channels one and two--the campaign has already begun.
Let's, then, make up our minds! And in this respect I am calling not even on our
leaders to make up their minds, this is ultimately their business, this is how
our system has been formed, and this is not rejected by a majority of the
citizenry. There are, though, people and publications, Ekho Moskvy, you,
Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Kommersant, Vedomosti that shape public opinion, well, make
up your minds. If you want to live in a so-called great country, bought up,
hydrocarbon-based, go ahead. This is a very important lever of influence.
On the other hand, very many documents have been published, how we are
materializing them is clear. Look, initially there was the word, then five areas
of priority projects were defined. Then instructions were given that all this had
to be implemented, the money had to be found from somewhere. The final technical
document of the government was to have appeared in March, but there's no
certainty that the bureaucracy is responding this way.
(Tsvetkova) Is this bureaucratic sabotage?
(Yurgens) To call it this with such words is to return to Stalinism. We need to
find other ways, to rely on those that have something to defend, who want to
develop and push. This is why I find the idea of modernization partnership with
the EU very interesting. The EU itself proposed this, this is not as yet all that
clear a concept, but, as far as I know, Medvedev gave the command that all this
be analyzed by the Rostov summit in June. If our bureaucracy does not respond and
impedes matters, we can include the international community in this process, and
this would have quite a big catalytic impact. The chimeras of imperial grandeur
are coming to an end, I believe. Let's make up our minds, therefore.
(Tsvetkova) Why is there little time remaining?
(Yurgens) Our discussions with scientists and educators, of whom there are few
remaining here, show, unfortunately, that the present graduates conform to no
standards. There are the extant men of the 1960s, and they are, indeed, now 60,
and then a big lacuna in the sphere of basic science, accordingly, applied
science, accordingly, innovations. You can bring in specialists temporarily, but
they also need to be adapted, and the system, meanwhile, is slipping. We either
begin, therefore, to take up all this in earnest and begin to emancipate the
person whom we call the small and medium-sized businessman, and then he will
remain and begin to work here. Or, as tens, hundreds, almost, of letters shout:
you keep going on about modernization, but if we are to develop honestly, after
all the innovations in the field of social taxes and disbursements, there's only
manual work to be done, and on top of this you pay the police officer and the
firefighter, pay for the public-health inspection also, I'm worn out, that's it,
I'm closing up and leaving. Ask people from the All-Russia Nongovernmental
Organization of Small and Medium-Sized Business, from the Russian Union of
Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, they are fighting. This is why there's little
time. If these last productive production forces vote with their feet, the
alternative are the remaining tough owners of big natural resources with large
protected enterprises, all other thinking persons will be abroad. It would be
better to stop them before it's too late, bring many back, improve the climate,
afford them an opportunity to work, carry into effect all the university towns.
(Tsvetkova) There was, though, a period, it had begun, when people had begun to
believe in economic prospects here, foreign business began to take root here?
(Yurgens) Big foreign business, which has legal services and knows how to operate
in countries with adverse regimes, it is going nowhere. We are better than
Nigeria, but they continue to operate there also because oil is needed, gas and
diamonds are needed. There are countries that are a thousand times more
challenging than us, nonetheless, we are improving, we have in the past 20 years
improved the human capital, we have improved the climate, the laws. The big
players will not be leaving, therefore, because too much for the whole world is
located in this storehouse. But when they go home, they are asked: what's it like
there, in Russia? They say: difficult. This is how an image is created. I now
want to express my personal viewpoint. There was a time when we said that
everything should be based on market principles, that we should fight for
clients. And in these small stores and boutiques there was some revitalization
and humanization. Now, go even to the most prestigious mega-market, you could be
well and truly told where to get off. Why? Monopolization, an unhappiness with
something that needs to be ascertained in subtle sociological conversations, and,
most important, the non-inclusion of this mass of people in life. This is a
resentfulness from non-inclusion, not only from the deterioration in the economic
situation.
We are all a little lazy. I'll give you an example, we were talking about
law-enforcement systems. People came that had served in uniform for 30 years, we
asked them: why straight into the pretrial detention center, ahead of
everything--investigation, trial? It's easier to operate this way, we are told.
Before taking a case to court or before an arrest, investigate, chase, seek
proof, evidence, as we are shown in Western movies. Here a person is locked up,
he has largely confessed and will not flee anywhere. This is laziness. You are
stopped by a traffic cop: you have exceeded the speed limit, write up the fine?
But you have to go to the bank, then bring it back.... You'd better take this
money, please, from me personally, inspector. Laziness! And here I reproach only
myself, this is my laziness. All this needs to be overcome.
And, further, the lack of competition. Take even sport, sport has not become a
mass pursuit, stars are found, we begin to pour money into them, and they then
they go in for the bragging finger gesture. And then what? Remember how it was
with mass sports? In order to get not into the top team exactly, into the second
or third, yikes, how you had to put out. The same in the economy. Why do they
greet you this way in the supermarket, someone's property? Because they are all
monopolized. Take the de-monopolized sectors, cell phones, for example. They
remain pretty good. I get here, in Russia, a far better signal than in America,
say. This is the result of de-monopolization, the right management, the right
institutions.
(Tsvetkova) Is some monopolization observed among experts also?
(Yurgens) I believe that a very prolific economic debate began immediately
following the crisis. We have not yet switched to the political crisis but the
Rubicon of the belief that ideology is developed only up there, at the top, and
that this is not our business has now, I believe, been crossed. There are today
very many people who are talking absolutely freely about many things. And I
sometimes get true pleasure from hearing two persons of absolutely opposite views
conducting an intelligent conversation, arguing with each other, defending their
viewpoint. That we need to know how to do this--to articulate and to write--is
another matter.
(Tsvetkova) Is all this sufficient for the opposition not to be crushed?
(Yurgens) There are sufficient expert platforms. True, as soon as someone
attempts to form a party of the right, much in the way of deliberately and
skillfully organized interference arises.
[return to Contents]
Forward email
Safe Unsubscribe
This email was sent to os@stratfor.com by Email Marketing by
davidjohnson@starpower.net. [IMG]
Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM) | Privacy Policy.
Johnson's Russia List | 1647 Winding Waye Lane | Silver Spring | MD | 20902