November 27, 2007
Crackdown in Russia
The only thing that surprises me about the Russian government’s crackdown on the opposition ahead of the Duma elections on Sunday is how heavy-handed it is. President Putin is clearly keen to preserve the facade of Russian democracy and his party is cruising to victory anyway - so why bother?
An explanation of sorts was offered to me recently by Mikhail Kasyanov - once Putin’s prime minister, and now a leader of the increasingly fragmented and harried opposition. Kasyanov says that the current regime in the Kremlin is "based on the KGB spirit". He thinks that "Putin would win anyway, but the KGB mentality is risk averse. If they can eliminate risks, they’ll do it."
The trouble is that in eliminating one minor risk - that the liberal opposition might do better than expected - Putin’s government seems to be creating a bigger risk. According to Kasyanov (admittedly, not an impartial observer), Putin is keen to stick formally to the constitution and step down as president next year because "he wants to be viewed by you guys as a democrat." But when famous opposition figures like Gary Kasparov are being slung into jail, Putin’s democratic credentials appear more and more tarnished in the west. Today’s highly acerbic FT leader is - I think - fairly representative of how opinion in the west is shifting.
It is quite likely that this Sunday’s Duma elections will end up with just two parties represented in the Russian parliament - Putin’s United Russia and the Communists. This will fit well with Putin’s international strategy of presenting himself to the west as the least worst Russian alternative. But if the elections are widely written off as a charade, then Putin is weakened internationally.
That matters because he still has to handle the even trickier presidential transition. Most people seem to think Putin will stick to his word and go in May - but will somehow arrange matters so that he remains the most important person in Russia. (Kasyanov buys this analysis; the only person I’ve heard who is absolutely adamant that Putin will not step down is the even less impartial, Boris Berezovsky)
The liberals and democrats - who are likely to be wiped out in the Duma elections - will try to re-group for the presidential poll. They are all struggling to try and sound hopeful. Kasyanov - who almost certainly is planning to run himself - reckons that if the liberals can unite around a single candidate, they could get 20% of the vote in May’s presidential poll and get through to the second round "and if we do that, everything will change." The trouble is that there are quite a lot of "ifs" in that scenario.
Excuse my ignorance but what did these wonderful liberals do for Russia other than connive in robbing it blind and make her transition from the Soviet era into a humiliating debacle? Why do they deserve support?
Wouldn’t Russia have been better off if somebody like Putin had been in charge, rather than somebody like Yeltsin? (Or frankly if Andropov had been ten years younger when he came to power, instead of handing over to Gorbachev?
Being from the Third World myself and eyeing Washington-sponsored “liberals” and “democrats” all over the globe (look at Pakistan today), I wish the Russian people good luck in having an effective, strong, nationalist government that runs things from Moscow for the benefit of the Russian people and is not dominated by Washington.
May Mr. Putin be replaced by someone better but someone who is better for the Russians not Americans.
Amen,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 27th, 2007 at 5:49 pm | Report this commentSteve, thanks for the laugh!
Posted by: RCS | November 27th, 2007 at 7:09 pm | Report this commentI’ve read it twice but I’m still not sure if Pacifist’s comment is a joke.
I’ve now read it a third time and decided that it isn’t a joke. This has made me slightly more pessimistic about human nature than I was before.
Posted by: Rollo | November 27th, 2007 at 11:21 pm | Report this commentThere was no viable alternative to Boris Yeltsin in 1991. What we saw and lived was a Conditional Surrender of the Soviet Union (USSR) at the end of WWIII (the Cold War) which, unlike Germany in WWII (Unconditional Surrender and continuos military Occupation for ever), allowed Russia to lose with some Dignity and keeping Sovereignty over the overwhelming majority of its territory (unlike Germany which is NOT a Sovereign nation as we all know) with veto rights in the UN Security Council and thousands of nuclear weapons.
The main condition was the Independence of Ukraine because the difference between having Ukraine (52 million people by then and 46 million people now) IN the Federation or OUT (as it is now) is the difference between Empire and middle Power, between 280 million people and 140 million people, between an economic Pole and an economic satellite (as it is now with an economy similar to The Netherlands at current prices, or similar to Italy at PPP) from the European Union.
To that end it was, and it is, necessary guaranteeing the Independence of Ukraine (Orange Revolution) even if i think it was a mistake taking the Russian-populated Crimean Peninsula that should have integrated in the Russian Federation, and strengthening the European Union (Euro, Schengen and Cohesion Funds)in spite of British Europhobic paranoia which has tried for years to weaken the European Union.
Personally i think Vladimir Putin is an intelligent leader who has done a good job improving economic and social conditions in the Russian Federation and giving hope to the Russian People. It is logical Russians appreciate him and his Government becacause it is also true that those robber barons who came after the fall of the USSR (guys 30 something years old were given National properties worth billions of euros…)
But it is also true even if some of those years were dark it cannot be compared to the average catastrophic human genocide in Russian History, be it with Czars, Soviets or Nazis…it was a relatively mild revolutionary change from a social point of view even if the demographic debacle (from 148 million people to 142 million now)and economic Depression means it has had a very high human cost.
Now the Russian Federation is recovering its self-steem, rebuilding, growing, improving its decrepit Defense and, most important, the demographic debacle is diminishing.
Posted by: Enrique Costas Mira | November 28th, 2007 at 12:55 am | Report this commentI know journalists who have been working in Moscow for more than a decade starting from the early nineties. I heard from them (not from the Russian president) that in certain Russian business and political cycles the former prime minister, Mikhail Kasyanov’s nickname was “5 percent Misha” because he allegedly asked 5 percent from the value of every business deal involving the state. Whether it’s true or not, may be we’ll never know, nevertheless I’d be a bit more cautious with quoting him on democracy and rule of law in Russia. Which does not mean I’m a big fan of the Putin regime, far from that. I’m appalled by the system which in many aspects reminds me to the Soviet era with one important exception: what was then openly prohibited (speak, write, protest etc. freely) now is mainly achieved using the evil methods of the KGB.
Posted by: Katalin | November 28th, 2007 at 9:59 am | Report this commentI would like to add one more thing to my earlier post please.
Although the West purports to support Human Rights and democracy in Russia, they supported or ignored the worst, by far, of the crimes perpetrated by Mr. Putin i.e., his treatment of the Chechens.
Look at the following speech by President Bush as an example of a clear nod and a wink towards Moscow on the Chechnya issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/politics/06text-bush.html?pagewanted=print
“Other militants are found in regional groups often associated with Al Qaeda; paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia and the Philippines and Pakistan and Chechnya and Kashmir and Algeria.”
Folks, the Western support for democracy in Russia is entirely motivated by greed and a desire to dominate and loot the Russians’ resources. We see it in other Former Soviet States even more clearly. Look at how they support former KGB thugs in Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. It is not just the Americans. Look at the web site of Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan who was sacked after he objected to the boiling alive of two members of the opposition and read his book “Death in Samarkand”
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
Human Rights advocacy is simply another tool in the box of tricks of the hegemonists. They care neither about humans nor they rights. They simply use Human Rights to pressure governments for economic and political concessions but ignore the atrocities committed by their friends (e.g. Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians) or commit them directly (Shock and Awe, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Blackwater….)
Hopefully, one day people of the West will open their eyes to what is done in their names.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 28th, 2007 at 10:13 am | Report this commentI live in Russia many years. And I can’t remember something what was likely opposition. Here is no conditions to developing this kind of social and political institutions in Russia.
Posted by: Matthew | November 28th, 2007 at 11:57 am | Report this commentEvery day we listening censorious remarks from the local and federal mass-media about our “opposition”. It is necessary to remember that most of Russia’s mass-media is belong to Russia’s government.
And when Putin have lead party ticket of the main political party I understand that existing of opposition in Russia is impossible. Putin’s image is very high in Russia and it is influence on public opinion.
Political advertisement of “opposition” is so ugly and likes anti-advertisement. It means that it is makes specially.
I can’t say anything else. There’s only no denying it.
Just understand me. Opposition in Russia is worthless falsification. Real opposition in Russia is absent. It is only game. It is manipulation of european and russian public opinion. It is truth.
I am no expert on Russia, but all this talk about how that country needs a “strong, nationalist” regime that will appeal to popular chauvinism reminds me just a little too much of Hitler’s rise to power. One big problem in mobilizing public opinion against Putin, however, is that the west’s largest “democracy”, the US, is also lurching toward dictatorship. Spying, secrecy, arbitrary imprisonment, torture, pseudo-legal claims to absolute power by a “unitary” executive (also known as a “decidership”) and an inceasingly trivial and meaningless, if not actually rigged, electoral process have become common “currency” in Bush/Cheney’s America. (My apologies to the rapidly sinking US dollar.)
As a New Yorker, I remember the 2004 Republican convention, when hundreds of peaceful Kerry supporters were arrested near the convention site and held in jail until the convention was over. Gary Kasparov would have felt right at home in one of the cells.
On another note, while I do not relieve that Gideon Rachman is at fault in this regard, would it be possible for John Kay (”Climate Change”, November 28) and some other FT columnists to give us readers a break by stopping their endless parroting of the line that George W. Bush sent troops to Iraq to “promote democracy”, which makes no more sense than the previous line about Saddam’s alleged WMD? Much more accurate would be the slogan on a button I managed to get hold of recently: “Liberty and Justice for Oil”.
Roger Algase
Posted by: Roger Algase | November 28th, 2007 at 2:24 pm | Report this commentNew York NY 10024
Another example of my bad proof-reading: I meant to write “believe”, not “relieve”, in my above comment.
Posted by: Roger Algase | November 28th, 2007 at 2:28 pm | Report this commentEvery irrational deed eventually turns out to have a source in emotional part of a person.
Unlike in the ‘West’, whatever that means, emotions play quite significant role in East European politics and are often expressed through immature behavior.
I believe that Putin and his clique see Kasparov and the rest as less than human. They, and Putin above all, are people with a mission, a clear goal which should be understandable even to a mentally challenged. From that point of view anyone who tries to stand in their way is not only malicious, but simply evil. Evil has to be eradicated.
Of course, people like Berezovsky, who I personally would not want to touch with a 10 foot pole, give them a lot of ammunition in sustaining that view.
On another subject Gideon, I believe the Department of State itself would be a very interesting subject. Who are those people, who put them there and who do they actually report to? I am under impression, as someone mentioned earlier, that it is not Americans who are in control of US foreign policy.
Kind regards,
Dusan
Posted by: Dusan | November 28th, 2007 at 2:35 pm | Report this commentDear Mr. Algase,
Might I be bold enough to suggest that you are confusing nationalism with chauvinism? Compare the dictionary definitions below. It seems that nationalism is a positive attitude whereas chauvinism is not.
Quote
American Heritage Dictionary na·tion·al·ism
Devotion to the interests or culture of one’s nation.
The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Unquote
and
Quote
American Heritage Dictionary - chau·vin·ism n.
Militant devotion to and glorification of one’s country; fanatical patriotism.
Prejudiced belief in the superiority of one’s own gender, group, or kind: “the chauvinism . . . of making extraterrestrial life in our own image” (Henry S.F. Cooper, Jr.)
[French chauvinisme, after Nicolas Chauvin, a legendary French soldier famous for his devotion to Napoleon.]
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Unquote
Come to think of it, chauvinism is what is currently demonstrated by the NeoCons in Washington.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 28th, 2007 at 3:41 pm | Report this commentP,
As a London resident, you should use the Oxford English Dictionary.
nationalism (OED, compact edition)
• noun 1 patriotic feeling, often to an excessive degree.
Best, kc
Posted by: kc | November 28th, 2007 at 3:54 pm | Report this commentHi kc,
Just goes to show the falling standards at Oxford
(They don’t know the difference between nationalism and chauvinism and they invite racists to the Oxford Union!!).
Anyhow, methinks it is good to like yourself (and by extension, your nation) but it is bad to have a superiority complex or consider others inferior.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 28th, 2007 at 4:09 pm | Report this comment“…most of Russia’s mass-media is belong to Russia’s government.” << lie
Posted by: B | November 28th, 2007 at 4:41 pm | Report this commentapologies from bringing something else up:
Pacifist,
A while back in one of your posts you pasted a link from Liberation reporting claims that Sarkozy is linked/backed/a pawn of/ some Jewish interests. Anyhow, this is from today’s Le Monde - comments from an Algerian minister.
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3212,36-983609@51-981390,0.html
I’m not sure what to think of the whole thing. Politicians quite obviously need backers if they are to be elected. Equally those backing polititians are not doing it for the fun of it nor are they investing time and money entirely selflessly. (call me cynic then). To my mind, then, it’s a given they are powerful interests behind every single politician. What matters to me is that when elected they do not blatantly distribute the sweets to their buddies. (cf Mr Bush) Going along with a vested interest doesn’t constitue in itself a bad decision but I do think one needs to be beyond those particular interests. It’s probably too early to tell for Mr Sarkozy.
Posted by: a | November 28th, 2007 at 5:07 pm | Report this commentDear a,
Many thanks for remembering and posting this interesting comment.
From what I hear on the news, things aren’t going too well for M Sarkozy.
I wonder if this will make him to more interested in foreign policy!
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 28th, 2007 at 5:25 pm | Report this commentDear Pacifist:
I hope that the American Heritage dictionary you refer to is not put out by the American Heritage Foundation or some other similarly-named biased right wing think tank. As generally used, “nationalism” can have either a positive or negative meaning, In its negative sense, it can be even stronger and more repugnant that chauvinism, as, for example in the case of the German National Socialist German Workers Party between 1933 and 1945, under the leadership of you know whom.
I might also suggest reading FT contributor Anatol Lieven’s excellent book “America Right or Wrong - An anatomy of American Nationalism”. It would be difficult to find a more complete and balanced view of both the positive and negative aspects of nationalism, at least as far as the US is concerned.
Roger Algase
Posted by: Roger Algase | November 28th, 2007 at 7:50 pm | Report this commentI think Gideon brings out a very good point. Putin’s “good” and “bad” are comparative. It would have probably been much better if somebody more liberal ran the country for the past 8 years. I actually think that Putin’s predecessor in the Prime -minister position, Sergey Stepashin, was a much better idea. Yeltsin came to realize it too in time, I think.
Posted by: MYV | November 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pm | Report this commentPutin does look like a lesser of two evils with the communists standing next to him. Most of the country knows that and especially young people. And young people were allowed to prosper in Russia and do as they please, because someone smart in the administration realized that if you keep those guys busy in the night clubs, bars and such they will have no time to protest on the streets. And grown ups with kids are rarely a driving force of the revolutions.
As for Russian nationalism - it is way beyond ridiculous now. Try to go to Moscow and tell people that somewhere else things are done differently and work better… look at the reaction then. And those are intelligent people.
And please - I am not saying this problem does not exist elsewhere (be it USA, France, Germany etc…) But “they have this problem too” is a stupid excuse, that solves nothing.
Regarding Russia: The Bush Administration is about to appoint a retired senior diplomat to try to advance ambitious U.S. aims in Russia and on the Caspian Sea.
Like the 11th-hour push on Israel and Palestine, it’s an example of Bush’s determination to stay relevant by attacking the thorny global problems he largely sidestepped until now.
Posted by: Eric | November 29th, 2007 at 2:08 am | Report this commentMore here: http://oilandglory.com/2007/11/news-bush-appointing-new-senior-envoy.html
P,
Glad to see you’ve broken cover. But fascism is never a response to the failures of democracy. No one said democracy was perfect - just a better alternative than the rest.
Perhaps you’d better start signing off “F”?
All the best.
Posted by: AYC | November 29th, 2007 at 9:35 am | Report this commentRead this interview from DW:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2972713,00.html
I find it informative.
Posted by: Max | November 29th, 2007 at 10:30 am | Report this commentDear Mr. Algase,
It goes without saying that I encouraged nationalism in the positive sense.
For nationalism in the negative sense, one needs to look no further than the PNAC web site.
Of course, some say that this whole NeoCon malarky is a thin wrapper around Likudnik supremacist ideologies which are carried through at the cost of American blood and treasure. (Mr. Rachman disagreed with this a couple of weeks ago though I thought his arguments were not convincing.)
Anyhow, mustn’t digress.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 29th, 2007 at 11:46 am | Report this commentHi AYC,
Thanks for demonstrating the strawman tactic once more.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 29th, 2007 at 12:55 pm | Report this commentTo know what is happening in Russia is interesting watching
www.russiatoday.com
Note that journalists speak in American English.
Technically good the TV can be watched live.
Posted by: Enrique | November 30th, 2007 at 12:56 am | Report this commentSo Putin’s speach was interesting. Totally wrong strategy in my opinion. It’s all fine to fuel hatred towards the United States - people are ready and willing to hate them, and not just in Russia. However saying that opposition is an enemy element, and wishes Russia harm… I don’t think Democrats or Republicans ever said that the other wishes to do harm to their country. Sounds like paranoya, and will probably take votes away from United Russia, rather than give them any. Wouldn’t matter if elections are going to be rigged.
Posted by: MYV | November 30th, 2007 at 5:33 pm | Report this commentPick one strategy Mr. Putin. And I would suggest giving up the KGB one and sticking to the westernized approach. Arresting Shenderovich… that is just stupid, very stupid - one thing that will give liberals the votes. If Putin just asked people to attend and vote - and I mean for anybody, without Soviet style propaganda he would have looked confident, and… for the lack of better word non-chekist. Now he appears to be paranoid more than ever before.
And the elections are of course going to be rigged. Apart from the time-proved classical way with counting techniques, there are some more high-tech ones now. Russian sites report numerous cases of employers DEMADNING their employees to make a photo (with their mobile phone camera) of the ballot ticked in the right place (United Russia) and their passport next to it.
Interesting how many people even in this forum, let alone in Russian itself, believe in Putin&Co’s mission, strategy, plan to revive the country. Pure mathematics shows that Russia has fared much worse under Putin than it could have done without him. Oil cost around 16USD in 1999; it costs over 90USD now. The growth is some 500%. Now, Russian GDP has grown by 67% (in USD terms) in the same seven years. Of course there cannot be a linear dependance, but still, 67% economic on the back of the 500% price growth for its main export commodity, is not it a bit too weak for a governemnt which claims to revive the country?
So far the most comprehensive analysis of the Russian “achievements” under Putin I’ve seen has been provided by the Institute of National Strategy headed by Stanislav Belkovsky. The results in just one industry, contributing the bulk to the state budget, can be summed up as follows:
- no diversification of economy, increasing dependance on oil&gas exports
-depletion of proven oil&gas reserves, stagnation of oil production, decreasing gas production (57,4% of all Russian gas is produced at just TWO oil fileds which are in their final stages of exploitation).
-major pipelines have a 55.2% wear and tear, have not been revamped in the past 20 years (including seven under Putin). Some 29200 oil leaks are registered in the pipeline network annually.
A similar report has been recently done by INS on the state of the Russian military. The conclusions are striking. Despite all the military anti-Western rethorics of the current Russian leaders and their therats, the country’s defense has actually been seriously, if not catastrophically weakened since 2000. The number of nuclear warheads which was over 5800 in 1999 is around 3300 now. While in the disastrous 1992-1999 the Russian army got over 100 new airplanes, since 2000 it got just TWO! Similarly, in 1992-1999 it got 150 new tanks while since 2000 - just 90.
Enough to make one doubt about the real intentions of Putin’s governemnt. Belkovksy, by the way, explains the logique behind Putin’s disappointing track reckord. He argues that Putin represents and promotes the interests of the same 1990-s-born oligarch-style speculative oil&gas capital, oriented at its own short-term enrichment at the expense of true national development, which catapulted it to power (Putin was proposed to Yeltsin by Roman Abramovitch and Boris Berezovsky in 1999). This capital could never afford any serious clash of interests with Europe and the US, its key markets and its key bankers. Therefore all its symbolic moves like pulling out of the CFE treaty are totally harmless and designed for the consumptioin of the domestic “middle class” (see Friday’s FT). By the way, Russia has been unable to fill its quotas for military hardware in Europe even before it pulled out of the treaty. Russia plainly lacks resources to catch up with NATO in Europe (NATO members’ GDP is 29 times that of Russia). However, interestingly enough neither the US, nor EU, nor NATO have ever mentioned that Russia could not economically exceed the CFE limits whether it wanted or not.
Posted by: A Russian | December 1st, 2007 at 11:42 am | Report this commentYes, that’s economics. Like I said before, apart from flat-tax reform, Putin’s years in office are completely wasted. Well not completely… not for everybody, granted TI reports on catapulting corruption.
The military problems are visible through “situation handling”. Beslan, a theater in Moscow, annihilation of Chechnya’s population.
The biggest disappointment for me though, is a complete blind eye approach towards fascist movements inside the country, and appearance of “Hitler’s youth” type of organizations. I think a lot of bad stuff is yet to come out of it.
As for the future, I think Putin will step down in March, the new guy will come in to do all the dirty work - unpopular stuff like liberating energy prices, etc… People will obviously be unhappy about their energy bills rising 5-10 times. New president will be either impeached or will step down due to “health issues”. Putin returns victoriously through a referendum in Duma and with full support of the people. Constitutional majority certainly helps in these cases.
Posted by: MYV | December 3rd, 2007 at 12:31 am | Report this commentSo Mr. Kasparov - it’s not “a rape of democracy”. It has been long since there was anything to rape.
Whether Putin wants to return to power is an open question. The above-mentioned Belkovsky, a very credible-sounding analyst who worked for the Putin camp during the 2000 elections, has long claimed that the only thing Putin craves for is personal wealth and freedom guarantees. His reasoning goes like this: Putin never wanted the President’s office and refused twice when he was offered to run for it by Yeltsin’s people back in 1999. Once he agreed though, he mostly enjoyed the power accessories and frills (which is natural if one look at his typically commonplace background). However, he was always averse to taking decisions and bearing responsibility for them - which explains his reform-free reign with, MYV is right, the flat tax reform and probably the Land Code as the only breakthroughs.
Now, with civil and military infrastructure falling apart and very unpopular decisions looming on the horizon, it would be suicidal for Putin to wish to preside over the country now, when he was not brave (and intelligent) enough to reform it over the past 7 years. He would much prefer to retire on his 70% approval rating rather than squander it on inevitable popular discontent during the next decade. It’s even less likely that Putin would want to become a PM, a subordinate position with lots of technical competence and responsibilities which he’s always shunned.
However, given the Russians’ tradition of unfriendly treatment of their - once adulated - ex-leaders and the current fragile balance of powers between ruthless factions of siloviki clans, Putin is extremely lonely, lost, embittered and stressed. What is at stake can be seen form the recent imprisonments of Deputy Finance Minister Mr Storchak and Deputy Chief of Anti-Drugs Agency General Bulbov, both initiated by rival Kremlin clans. Putin must find a way to retain influence (=immunity) without retaining power. He cannot afford a single mistake. And he is not a person who acts well under pressure. Therefore the greatest danger for the rest 142 mln of Russians is - whether his decisions will not trigger a bloody war between heavily-armed oil-funded clans. The current “soft totalitarism” may look a democratic dream then.
Posted by: A Russian | December 3rd, 2007 at 10:09 am | Report this commentCriticism cannot mask pro-Putin fervour
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7124839.stm
Posted by: Pacifist | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:10 pm | Report this comment