July 8, 2008
Medvedev and Brown
So much for a “fresh start” between Britain and Russia, in the Medvedev era. It sounds like Gordon Brown and President Medvedev had a pretty disastrous meeting yesterday.
There is a striking contrast between the way the Russians are willing to deal with the British and their treatment of the Americans. Put bluntly, the Russians seem happy to beat up on the British and are much more careful to maintain a reasonably friendly relationship with the Bush administration.
It is true that there are some very tricky issues between Russia and Britain - the BP row, the legacy of the Litvinenko murder and so on. But the Russians also have serious disputes with America - over missile defence, Nato expansion etc. I’m afraid it may simply be that it is easier to bully Gordon Brown’s Britain than George Bush’s America. In fact, I wonder whether Britain might not be becoming a surrogate for Russian anti-American feeling?
The Russians are feeling confident - and Britain may look like a soft target. Last night on television Pauline Neville-Jones, once a senior British diplomat, was huffing-and-puffing about how seriously Britain would react, if the Russians were to commit another murder on the streets of Britain. (The Foreign Office has just leaked that they are pretty sure that there was “state involvement” in the killing of Litvinenko.)
But Neville-Jones was fairly vague about what exactly these stern reactions might amount to. She said that there would definitely be European solidarity with Britain, if there were any repeat of something like the Litvinenko murder. I’m not so sure. Germany is very keen on its special relationship with Russia.
And what would the British reaction be? I asked a senior official this question this morning. The official shrugged semi-despairingly and replied - “Expel a few diplomats?”
Gideon–Your point that Russia is projecting its anger with the US at Britain is well put. I do not think Europe (not just Germany) and Britain are on the same page when it comes to Russia. Switzerland may be a more reliable partner, as the Swiss are not happy about Russian overtaking Italian as their third language.
Nearly everything written in the UK or US about the oil contracts or the new espionage games are quite one sided. The absence of real outrage suggests that innocence may be a bit fleeting in quarters off Fleet Street, no? BP is no innocent; it exploited, together with the US Oilcos and others, the weaknesses in Russia’s legal system during the Yeltsin years. MI5 and MI6 are not innocent. Russia’s rebirth with its own memory has caught many by surprise. Or perhaps they just took Russians as stupid.
This story has more than one side. Overall, portrayals of Russians in Western media are reprehensible.
Why are such stereotypes not challenged where challenges count (like here in the pink pages)?
You suggest Russia may be the two-faced partner vis-à-vis the US. Would you not agree that the more desperate manipulations, lies and contradictions seem to come from the US side?
Britain has handled all Russian affairs badly for several years. The photo of Brown and Medvedev on the front page of the European edition today certainly did not offer any support to the PM. Nor would he seem deserving of support. The problem is that most readers are in a deep fuzz as to why noe of these stories seem to ring true.
You haven’t shed much light on it today, apart from saying that each of the players is speaking through masks and showing a bit too much sock.
Posted by: wcm | July 8th, 2008 at 2:02 pm | Report this commentBoth Russia and Iran have found a new assertivness, their confidence boosted by their exploding energy revenues. Both are playing a game of divide-and-rule with the West: the Russians bullying Britain and the eastern Europeans, but on good terms with the Germans; the Iranians signing a gas deal with the quisling Swiss, playing for time with America and the EU (while slinging threats).
Their authoritarian cultures were shaped by similar Eurasian forces: the Mongol onslaught beginning in the 13th century, which impinged on them both; the Persian autocratic traditions, which by way of Byzantium shaped the early traditions of Muscovy.
Both regimes show little moral compunction, as evidenced by human-rights abuses inside Iran, as well as support for international terror; as evidenced in Russia by Chechnya and the Litvinenko and Polikovskaya affairs.
This is not a fair-play game. In contrast to China, which has shown maturity restraint and responsibility as its power and influence have grown, these players view the world in terms of a zero-sum game; they strive to grab all they can get.
But Europe is in denial, content to hide behind legalesse, shifting papers from one side of the desk to the other, while underneath their noses a new global order is shaping, one of bullying rogue forces, one very different from the stable multi-polar legality they imaqine they are championing.
Posted by: RCS | July 8th, 2008 at 2:08 pm | Report this commentWhy oh why are the Westerners surprised when others resent being ripped of by them? The demonisation Of the Russians is as reprehensible as it is ridiculous.
Today, Iraq is being raped by the Western oil companies and the Iraqi Hydrocarbon law. Would it be any surprise if a future Iraqi government tore those up and asserted sovereignty over its resources?
The Russians also had some poor contracts rammed down their throats during a particularly weak and chaotic time for them and are merely trying to claw back some of the lost ground.
And please don’t feel sorry for BP. They started as Anglo Persian Oil Company and, as an arm of British Colonialism, were responsible for untold miseries heaped upon the people of Iran.
In fact all major oil companies have their history in imperialism. Has it occurred to you why Germany, with possibly the strongest chemical industry in the world, does not have a sizeable oil company whereas US, UK and France do? It is because Germany was not a colonialist (or was not allowed to be for long, whereas the others were).
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 8th, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Report this commentPacifist: “It is because Germany was not a colonialist (or was not allowed to be for long, whereas the others were).” Are you joking? Although Germany was late to the party - not unifying until the late 19th century - it certainly carved out a role for itself in German East Africa and had at one time or another colonies in the Pacific, the Americas and China. Prior to unification Prussia at least was well acquainted with the mantle of imperialist. And what do you call the Third Reich?
RCS: couldn’t have put it better.
Posted by: AYC | July 8th, 2008 at 5:02 pm | Report this commentAYC: “And what do you call the Third Reich?”
In this context: A short-lived attempt at empire building beaten off by more experienced empires.
As you say, the Germans were late to the party and their empire building was decisively set back twice hence their lack of access to cheap oil to build seven-sisters type oil companies.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 8th, 2008 at 5:20 pm | Report this commentGideon, I think expectations of such are meeting were overrated for several reasons.
First of all, there is a long second side of the story here in Russia on all major problem issues (Litvinenko, TNK-BP, British council) and Medvedev is just not able to ignore that. Moreover, things like “what happens if they commit another murder on British streets” are just not helpful in means of finding the common ground. We have lots of similar political dust on state TV channels here. Medvedev is kind of short of foreign policy advances he may give at the moment, so what he does is just patiently and non-emotionally telling the second side of the story. If he manages to block any type of state controlled TNK-BP buyout and ease restrictions for British NGOs and expatriots that to my point of view would be far enough. I really hope he does not engage in the Litvinenko case, since there is a bunch of other hopeful bad news he has to say to our Russian “neo-cons”.
Second thing is that there probably is still an illusion in Kremlin that personal talks with GWB could to some extent influence or even reverse key political decisions on NATO and AMD. Official rethorics towards Russia in past years usually came from UK and the New Europe, while the decisions came mostly from Washington. This is where they are looking for the key. Brown does not have that key, but he was not engaged in rethorics as well. So I’m more optimistic about their future talks.
Posted by: Andrei, Russia | July 9th, 2008 at 4:21 am | Report this commentRCS, you should consider signing for McCains League project
There is an autocratic tradition, which historically emerged from necessity to unite the huge number of feud communities against external invadors like empire of the Mongols. Tsars and the commies lived with the same idea. Putin remembered about that, when he banned elections of regional governors.
I would be banal, but I support Medvedev’s view that the most appropriate type of democracy for Russia is the one with strong president (other than parliament) rule. Same as in US or France. Otherwise we will soon base politics on geographical and ethnical lines like it happens in the neighborhood.
I would strongly disagree with you on the intentions part since even the commies were actually more concerned about defending themselves other than “making the world order”. The priveledge of saving the world from commies/autocrats/terrorists is strongly reserved with the US. The only problem is that you don’t always have a say on whether you need to get saved.
Posted by: Andrei, Russia | July 9th, 2008 at 5:23 am | Report this commentWhat Germany knows is that the Russian Federatio is a reliable and secure supplier of natural resources compared to the Mideast.
Germany doesn´t have former colonies with millions of barrels like the UK or even Italy (Libya) and as a consequence of being a nation under military occupation cannot build useful forces to guarantee supply establishing military bases in other natios as the US does.
So Germany doesn´t have any other alternative but a good relationship with its main supplier which at least have allowed Germany to have a say in World Energy with impressive gas companies like E-On, even if still far away from old colonial companies like Shell, BP or Total.
Posted by: Enrique | July 9th, 2008 at 5:55 am | Report this commentI think Europeans who want to enter America’s various fights should consider the insincerity of the Americans and their inability to put their money where their mouth is. The following news item shows that American exports to Iran have risen tenfold since Bush assumed power at a time when America encourages all to avoid trading with Iran:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/09/usforeignpolicy.usa
The same kind of consideration should apply when you consider taking on Russia, China etc.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 9th, 2008 at 11:36 am | Report this commentIt was obvious from the start that there was state involvement in Litvinenko’s murder. The brutal fact is that Britain lost much respect under the feeble and posturing Blair, becoming recognized worldwide as a soft touch - not only for illegal migrants - to the extent that Russia knew they could get away with such a disrespectful killing.
Would they have dared the same thing in Washington, Paris or Tel-Aviv? Hardly.
Posted by: Shevvers | July 10th, 2008 at 7:09 pm | Report this comment.
I’m back on an blessedly roman keyboard after a week of painful cyrillic fare at the dismal hometown of Severstal .
From discutions with the locals…
“Engliskiis” score high marks for football , shopping and treachery .
There seems to be a pretty solid consensus that the british government was , is and always will be the running dog of the Bush warmongers , used for agit-prop , provocation and general hostilities to the peace and good name of Russia
the molycodling of various Chechens ( litteraly )cuttroaths , shelter given to the thief boris Berezovsky , running torrents of insults heapped on the much loved Putin , various spying scandals ….
I was not surprised at the convoluted structures of some of the alledged conspiracies but somewhat made thoughtful at the long lasting memories of some of the wrongs , including the British press coverage of the 2002 Moscow theater and the 2004 Beslan school massacre ,
How after a perfunctory few lines condemning the terrorists the main body of the reporting would lash at the Russians government and its (admitedly doggy) law enforcment agencies .
kicking Britain and all its works is a sweet revenge for all the above , I would guess that British government credibility is pretty close to zero and will remain there for a VERY long time
Posted by: jeannick | July 16th, 2008 at 2:30 am | Report this commentinteresting that there is no mention of the previous 22 requests by Russia to extradite a collection of theives and terrorists which HMG are currently sheltering. Yes Gideon, it’s all Russia projecting hostility against then US onto the poor innocent Brits, lol!
Posted by: RKKA | July 31st, 2008 at 11:50 am | Report this comment