text:
The Global Intelligence Files,
files released so far...
Index pages
by Date of Document
Our Partners
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
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] 2011-#187-Johnson's Russia List
Released on 2012-10-12 10:00 GMT
Email-ID | 2154877 |
Date | 2011-10-17 17:21:30 |
From | firstname.lastname@example.com |
To | firstname.lastname@example.com |
List-Name | email@example.com |
Johnson's Russia List
17 October 2011
A World Security Institute Project
JRL homepage: www.cdi.org/russia/johnson
Constant Contact JRL archive:
Support JRL: http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/funding.cfm
Your source for news and analysis since 1996n0
A minimum contribution of $25 is suggested. $50 is the normal
level of support. Business-users should pay more.
You may send a check made out to WSI to:
The World Security Institute Attention: JRL
1779 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-2109
You can make a credit card contribution thru Paypal by going
to this location:
Or you can make a credit card contribution by contacting Judy
Edwards of the WSI at 202-797-5260.
In this issue
1. Reuters: Russia's Medvedev embarks on risky career path.
2. BBC Monitoring: Russia's Medvedev Says He Does Not Want To 'Give Up Powers'
3. Interfax: Medvedev: Russia Needs Gradual, Not Abrupt, Changes in All Sectors.
4. Moscow Times: Medvedev Promises to Expand Cabinet as Prime Minister.
5. New York Times: Medvedev Says Leader Plan Was Studied.
6. Vedomosti: BIG-TIME PREMIER. IT IS DMITRY MEDVEDEV AND PROBABLY WITHOUT UNITED
7. ITAR-TASS: Medvedev plans to form "broad government", experts wonder what for.
8. RIA Novosti: Russian Parliamentarians Not Convinced By Medvedev's 'Big
Government' Idea.
9. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: NEW FORMAT. Experts do not know what to make of Dmitry
Medvedev's "larger government"
10. RIA Novosti: Russians always have 'choice,' says Putin.
11. www.russiatoday.com: United Russia should remain leading political force
12. RBC Daily: MEDVEDEV'S HORIZONTAL. Analysis of Dmitry Medvedev's decisions
with regard to the gubernatorial corps.
13. Interfax: United Russia Issues Program Address to Nation in Run Up to Dec 4
Elections to Duma.
14. Gazeta.ru: United Russia election program extensively quotes Putin, Medvedev.
15. RIA Novosti: Russian Communist Party Unveils Its Pre Election Programme.
16. BBC Monitoring: Russian liberals want to revive Union of Right Forces.
17. BBC Monitoring: Yabloko party veteran says domestic demand key to Russian
economic prosperity. (Grigoriy Yavlinskiy)
18. Russia Beyond the Headlines: Electronically verified elections. Russia's
electronic voting system has a better track record than in many countries
considered more developed.
19. Moscow Times: Vladimir Sobell, A Reluctant Putin Critic.
20. Interfax: Veteran Rock Musician Criticizes Authorities, Says Soviet Union Is
Back. (Andrey Makarevich)
21. Wall Street Journal Europe: Ashot Egiazaryan, Can Russia Ever Change? Russia
has never been as rich as today and nor has it been as corrupt.
22. Vedomosti: Former Tycoon Khodorkovskiy Pessimistic about Russia's
Modernization Prospects.
23. Moscow TImes: Khodorkovsky May Be Investigated for Money Laundering.
24. Interfax: Judges are afraid of using alternative measures of restraint -
25. BBC Monitoring: Russian liberal wins crime debate with hardliner in TV talk
26. BBC Monitoring: Russian lawyers, politicians divided over need for new
Criminal Code.
27. Interfax: Russian Presidential Envoy Dispels 'Myth' Of High Subsidies For
North Caucasus.
28. ITAR-TASS: Russia's people of science demand better financing of domestic
29. RIA Novosti: Russia prepared for any scenarios in world economy - Putin.
30. RIA Novosti: Russia must speed up economic diversification - Putin.
31. Interfax: Medvedev Does Not Want Russia to Be Noted For Its Role as Raw
Materials Supplier.
32. Moscow Times: Stuart Lawson, Crisis Team to Help Mitigate The 2nd Wave.
33. Wall Street Journal: Konstantin Korotov, Four Lessons on Leadership From
Russian Businesses.
34. Moscow Times: U.S. Says Human Rights Losing Out in 'Reset'
35. Washington Post: U.S. reset with Russia at new stage as officials meet with
human rights activists.
36. BBC Monitoring: Russian military worried about missile defence after 2015 -
37. Rossiyskaya Gazeta: New US envoy's comments on missile defence seen
disregarding Russian interests.
38. Moskovskiy Komsomolets: China Said to Be Reaping All the Benefits of Ties
with Russia.
39. International Herald Tribune: Raffaello Pantucci and Alexandros Petersen,
Russia's Eastern Anxieties.
40. Bloomberg: Russia Doesn't Expect Gas Pact During Medvedev's Ukraine Visit.
41. Center for American Progress: Samuel Charap. The Tymoshenko Verdict and
Ukraine's European Future.
42. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: SMIRNOV COUNTS ON NEW PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA. An update on
the state of affairs in the self-proclaimed Trans-Dniester Moldovan Republic.
Russia's Medvedev embarks on risky career path
By Alexei Anishchuk
October 14, 2011
NARYAN MAR, Russia (Reuters) - Dmitry Medvedev was met with whoops of excitement
from a small crowd when he arrived to inspect a run-down apartment block in this
depressed town in Russia's Arctic north.
"Are your flats heated?" the president asked muffled-up residents of Naryan Mar,
where temperatures sit below freezing for much of the year and where new
buildings are rare.
People in the block told him that their heating often went off during winter
because of power cuts in the river port town, where some live still in ramshackle
wooden structures.
Medvedev in turn protested to municipal officials, who duly said all tenants
would be moved out of the apartments and into new homes next year and that all
slums would be gone by 2016.
Such trips as this one last month to Naryan Mar are not the
glamorous part of Medvedev's work, but they have taken on a new significance
since he and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced last month that they plan to
swap jobs next year.
At risk of being a lame duck until next May, when Putin is expected to take over
as president, Medvedev is rolling up his sleeves and throwing himself into
preparations for a parliamentary election on Dec. 4.
United Russia, led by Putin, is sure of winning the election. But the margin of
victory is important because the party wants to keep its two-thirds majority in
the lower house, which makes constitutional changes possible if needed.
The size of the victory will also reflect on Medvedev personally. His name is the
first on the party's list of candidates, and a disappointing performance could
affect the legitimacy of Putin's plan to make him prime minister in May.
"If the party fails at the polls, I think it would be hard for Putin to comply
with his part of the deal," said Gleb Pavlovsky, head of the Foundation for
Effective Politics think-tank and a former Kremlin spin-doctor.
The stakes are high for Medvedev, whom Putin annointed in the Kremlin in 2008
after he himself had served the legal limit of two consecutive terms. The
46-year-old protege has kept the presidential seat warm until Putin can be
re-elected next year and now has much to prove to voters after failing to carry
out many of his promises as president or emerge from Putin's shadow.
In Naryan Mar, the welcome was polite but sceptical: "I live in an old building
and I don't think he could change that," said one woman who would give her name
only as Natalya. "But there's not much going on here, so we are happy he's come
Medvedev has been a frequent traveller but now his trips look increasingly like a
dress rehearsal for his future role, and reveal he has some way to go to perfect
his performance:
"Will I vote in the elections? No way. I don't trust politicians," said Viktoria,
who works at a power plant in Krasnodar to which Medvedev also paid a visit this
month and where he also promised investment in local infrastructure, as well as
chiding United Russia activists to campaign harder.
The tough talk - including a televised spat with ambitious finance minister
Alexei Kudrin, who then quit - as well as the crowd-pleasing promises differ are
familiar tactics of a Kremlin that these days fights real elections but intends
never to lose.
"Medvedev is using Putin's tested pre-election tricks as he has little time left
to come up with something new to bolster United Russia's ratings," said Yevgeny
Minchenko, director of the International Institute of Political Analysis.
Buoyed by oil exports, support for United Russia is enough to guarantee victory,
so Medvedev's real test is to retain two thirds of State Duma seats house and so
virtually total control. But the job swap deal and other grumbles seem to be
eating in to the party's ratings. One poll this week showed it on 41 percent of
voting intentions, off from 50 percent in January.
Pavlovsky said Medvedev needed to carve out his own image and differentiate
himself from the man who now seems set to rule Russia until 2024 if he is to pull
voters back to United Russia.
"Putin, who is now a strong prime minister himself, will soon have a weak prime
minister in Medvedev who is unable to make independent decisions," said analyst
Dmitry Oreshkin.
Medvedev has promised to overhaul the government to counter fears of political
and economic stagnation once Putin is sworn in as president, a few weeks after
the presidential election he is all but certain to win in March.
But he risks becoming a scapegoat, either if United Russia does not do well
enough in the December election or if public dissatisfaction grows next year over
the state of the economy.
"Putin could sack Medvedev at any moment if the overall situation in the country
deteriorates seriously and he needs to replace him with a strong leader he can
rely on," Oreshkin said.
The economy, vulnerable to fluctuations in global energy prices, suffered from
its customers' economic crisis in 2008-09 but used funds it had saved for a rainy
day to get through.
It has bounced back but foreign investors are still wary, and the rouble and
stocks have been under pressure for weeks. Russian assets trade at big discounts
to other emerging markets.
Some $50 billion dollars in capital has gone abroad over the past year and many
say reforms are vital to maintain the pension system and reduce reliance on
energy exports.
Putin, a former KGB officer, has long been loyal to his allies. Many members of
his government have served at the top level for a long time. He and Medvedev,
whose background is as a lawyer, have been friends since they worked together in
the St Petersburg city administration in the 1990s.
But as prime minister Medvedev will be vulnerable if another global economic
downturn hits Russia, even though Putin says Moscow will be better prepared this
time for any shocks.
Putin has shown ruthlessness in sacrificing Kudrin, another of his old Petersburg
team. And some observers say he seems to have lost faith in his protege, despite
assurances from their spokesmen that the pair get on well and see eye-to-eye on
Commentator Yulia Latynina said: "The future prime minister Medvedev will answer
for everything. And as soon as something goes wrong in the economy - well, there
he is, Medvedev."
Last month a poll showed Medvedev holding an impressive 62 percent approval
rating, just six points less than Putin's, yet impressions that he is dominated
by the older man, particularly after the deal to switch roles, risk eroding that
Uncertainty is growing behind the Kremlin walls. Some of his officials had urged
Medvedev to seek a second term as president. They now fret that he can no longer
show much authority.
Consider his setpiece annual address on the state of the nation, a moment to set
out achievements, and goals for the new year. "No one knows what he should be
talking about this time," the Kremlin official said of drafting the year-end
Already, even in foreign policy, a domain normally reserved for the president, it
is unclear what role Medvedev can still play. It was Putin who just made a
high-profile trip to China.
Medvedev will still take the stage to represent Russia at next month's G20
meeting in France and an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in
Hawaii. But it is far from clear how much time Western leaders, who once saw in
him an agreeable, more liberal alternative to Putin, will spare for the
In July, German Chancellor Angela Merkel playfully called him "Mr. Candidate",
hinting at talk - apparently from Medvedev himself - that he might challenge for
a second term. Now, as a soon-to-be "Mr. Ex-President", he may find fellow heads
of state looking over his shoulder again for the familiar Vladimir Putin.
[return to Contents]
BBC Monitoring
Russia's Medvedev Says He Does Not Want To 'Give Up Powers'
Rossiya 24
October 15, 2011
Moscow Rossiya 24 in Russian at 1021 GMT on 15 October broadcast live a meeting
between Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev and his supporters -- poilticians and
public figures -- in which he said that he is not going to "give up powers"
because he feels responsible for everything in the country and has to continue
his work. The meeting was held at the Digital October Center in central Moscow.
Journalist and historian Nikolay Svanidze was the only person at the meeting who,
toward the very end, reminded the president about grave systemic problems
gripping Russia, such as omnipresent corruption, lack of justice or proper
democratic institutions, and an archaic economy totally dependant on oil and gas.
"What tools do you have to resolve these problems?" Svanidze asked the president.
Medvedev admitted that these problems exist but urged not to exaggerate the
He said: "All that I have been doing in the last few years has been intended, if
not to remove these problems, then to significantly reduce them. Whether I have
succeeded or not, it's up to you to decide, you as experts, up to our people, our
society. This is absolutely true. Where do I see is the only tool that makes it
possible to continue doing this? I will tell you very frankly: not to give up
powers but to continue working."
"I do not know who will replace the current management team in 10 or 15 years. I
hope they will be better, more intelligent, and stronger than we are. But at the
moment I see my duty and personal responsibility in continuing my work for the
benefit of our country and our people," Medvedev said.
Medvedev admitted that the decision to run for president four years ago had not
been easy for him.
"And I just have no right to disclaim responsibility for everything that is
happening in our country, for everything we have done. I will definitely continue
this work," Medvedev said.
[return to Contents]
Medvedev: Russia Needs Gradual, Not Abrupt, Changes in All Sectors
MOSCOW. Oct 15 (Interfax) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is confident that
changes are necessary in all government and social sectors, but they should be
gradual, not abrupt.
"Our country needs modern development and gradual but steady reforms," Medvedev
said at a meeting with his supporters on Saturday.
He said he had heard criticism in his address that his proposals, however right
they might be, are being put into practice too slowly.
"We want everything to be quicker, we want to radically change the political
system, we want the investment climate to change. Let's face the truth: it's
impossible," Medvedev said.
"We should certainly continue modernization of the economy, humanization of
social relations, and development of the political system; we should continue
addressing the investment climate and supporting the business sector, without
forgetting about those whose incomes are not that high today," he said.
Russia should develop a modern and original democracy, which should not copy the
political system in the U.S. or other countries, he said.
"Nothing can be replanted onto our soil. We should create our own modern
democratic political system and saturate it with the right laws," he said.
The president also mentioned among his priorities combat against poverty.
Medvedev is also sure that the combat against corruption should be continued. He
said some skeptics have repeatedly told him that any attempts to beat corruption
are hopeless. "I was told: You should not get into this, you can't beat anyone.
Our corruption is so huge and unbridled that you would only undermine your
authority. I can tell you openly: I have no regrets," he said.
Medvedev said he understood the scope of the problem and "the fact that a
significant part of our social life includes horrible manifestations of
corruption." Nobody was talking about this ten years ago, and Russia did not have
special laws helping oppose corruption, he said.
"Now we at least have a legal basis, and therefore we should definitely continue
fighting corruption, and we should be doing this firmly and steadily, but without
any stupid things. An attempt to put all government officials in jail or dissolve
police and hire new policemen, as some of our neighbors have done, won't work
here. We can't do this - our country is too big," he said.
[return to Contents]
Moscow Times
October 17, 2011
Medvedev Promises to Expand Cabinet as Prime Minister
By Alexandra Odynova
President Dmitry Medvedev has promised to expand the Cabinet and to "seriously
reconstruct" United Russia as prime minister next year.
Medvedev's comments to a ragtag bunch of celebrities and politicians Saturday
were an attempt to assure supporters disgruntled by his decision to give up the
presidency that he is staying in politics and bringing his modernization agenda
with him.
But his second attempt to smooth the feathers of his core constituency, the
middle class, appeared to have a mixed effect judging by the reaction in the
blogosphere, where Twitter posts about his speech, marked with the hashtag
"pitiful", competed with approving "yes" hashtags.
"They are trying to frighten us with stagnation," Medvedev told the audience at
the Digital October conference center. "I want to say a few words about that: It
won't happen."
"I don't know who will replace the current governing team," Medvedev said,
according to a transcript on the Kremlin's web site.
"I hope they will be better, more intelligent, more competent than we have been,
but now I see it as my personal duty to continue working," he added, stressing
that he expected members of the audience to help him.
His audience numbered some 200 people, among them liberal-minded businessmen,
artists, public activists, bloggers and celebrities. The guest list included the
head of the Skolkovo foundation, billionaire Viktor Vekselberg; directors Fyodor
Bondarchuk and Alexei Popogrebsky; gallery owner Marat Gelman, Yandex head Arkady
Volozh, pop star Viktoria Daineko and television show host Tina Kandelaki.
But in a bid at broad representation, also invited were a decorated tank
commander who took part in the 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict, a steel worker and
several of Medvedev's allies with the ruling United Russia party.
"If we win the [State Duma] vote in December ... we will have to do some serious
reconstructing of the party," Medvedev said about United Russia, whose electoral
list he is topping. He was addressing director Bondarchuk, a party member who
nevertheless lashed out at United Russia shortly before Putin announced his
Medvedev also said he would not give up on modernization, which would call for a
"so-called big Cabinet" or "extended Cabinet."
He did not explain what that meant, but he did say the big government would work
together with the "traditional Cabinet, United Russia, civil society, experts,
regional and municipal authorities and voters."
He urged the audience to consider giving feedback to the proposal. The attendees
wasted no time in proposing to form a public committee to help create the "big
"Have no doubt, both the 'big government' and the smaller, real Russian
government will consist of new people," the president said.
Medvedev said he called the gathering to explain his decision not to run for the
presidency in March, nominating his mentor Prime Minister Vladimir Putin instead.
Putin said he would make Medvedev his prime minister in the post-election
Speaking of Putin, Medvedev said they are "not competitors in everyday life, but
close comrades, friends for 20 years already; otherwise there would be no
political career in Moscow for me."
Medvedev earlier explained the proposed job swap, announced at the United Russia
convention last month, in a prime-time television interview with the three main
national channels, saying he was stepping down because Putin remained the more
popular politician.
But that interview did little to stop the backlash by his liberal-minded
supporters, who were not the prime-time television audience.
For the second try, Medvedev selected a more modern venue, speaking at the
high-tech Digital October nestled in the Krasny Oktyabr building, the former
Soviet confectionery factory.
He was also decidedly less formal than at the pompous United Russia event,
sporting no tie and walking about the stage as he spoke, his iPad resting on a
desk. Moreover, he waved around a green "photographing allowed" sign, introduced
by bloggers fighting rampant bans on photography around the country, most of them
of questionable legality.
Not everyone took Medvedev up on his invitation to attend the meeting. Rustem
Agadamov, who runs one of Russia's most popular LiveJournal blogs, Drugoi, told
the Izvestia newspaper that he was interested at first, but rejected the
invitation after he learned the event was associated with United Russia.
Izvestia reported Saturday, citing unidentified Kremlin officials, that Agadamov
might have been onto something because the meeting was a test of a new campaign
format for the Duma vote invented by the Kremlin's top ideologist, Vladislav
Surkov, who is loathed by a large part of the liberal constituency. Surkov did
not comment on the report.
[return to Contents]
New York Times
October 16, 2011
Medvedev Says Leader Plan Was Studied
By ANDREW E. KRAMER
MOSCOW President Dmitri A. Medvedev struck a defensive note in a speech on
Saturday about the system for choosing Russia's leaders, insisting that he and
Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin had not decided to switch places during a
fishing trip, as some commentators have suggested.
In fact, he said, the decision was hardly so casual and came about as a result of
a "sufficiently long analysis" in discussions between the two men, weighing,
among other things, Mr. Putin's higher public approval ratings.
"You know, people say they met somewhere in the woods, on a fishing trip, and
changed everything, worked out this configuration and then came out with it at
the convention it's not that way at all," Mr. Medvedev said, referring to
pictures of the two men fishing together on the Volga River this summer.
The pair later announced, on Sept. 24 at a convention of the United Russia party,
that Mr. Putin would run for president in elections next March and appoint Mr.
Medvedev as prime minster if he won.
It is widely believed that Mr. Putin will easily win the elections, , in part
because he has shown little hesitation in repressing opposition parties and
Still, discontent has simmered among urban professionals, some of whom Mr.
Medvedev spoke to on Saturday at a town-hall-style meeting at Digital October, a
converted space for technology startups in the former Red October chocolate
factory in Moscow.
Mr. Medvedev's speech seemed intended to address the disillusionment of a segment
of the urban middle class. Some had earnestly supported Mr. Medvedev, as if he
were an independent political figure espousing reform.
But they learned last month that he and Mr. Putin had decided in secret that Mr.
Putin would remain in charge both in name and in truth.
"I know that when we announced the decision at the convention of United Russia, a
part of my supporters, those people, who said change is necessary, felt some
disappointment," he said.
But, using some of the starkest language yet about his loyalty to Mr. Putin, Mr.
Medvedev said he was never willing to turn on his patron to retain power. "For
some reason, a lot of people think that whoever becomes president should hammer
everybody around him, destroying those who helped his political career, and
life," Mr. Medvedev said. "I wasn't raised that way."
Mr. Medvedev suggested his stepping down from the presidency did not signal the
end of support for the causes he has championed, such as curbing official
corruption and diversifying the economy away from petroleum dependence.
Mr. Medvedev promised a government of fresh faces to carry out this agenda
presumably with the exception of himself and Mr. Putin.
Adopting a tough tone, he threatened to fire older bureaucrats, in this case
those who do not learn to use digital documents. Transforming Russia through
technology has been a consistent theme of his.
Mr. Medvedev told his supporters he had "no right to divest myself of
responsibility for anything that is happening in our country."
[return to Contents]
October 17, 2011
Author: Natalia Kostenko, Irina Reznik
[President Dmitry Medvedev met with his supporters to try an explain the decision
to become the premier.]
The meeting between the president and his supporters on the
premises of private industrial park Digital October in Moscow was
organized in haste and secrecy. Some of those to attend the
meeting were told that the president intended to see United Russia
supporters, others were led to believe that it would be youths,
and so on. Dmitry Medvedev himself announced that he meant to
explain the decision proclaimed at United Russia convention on
September 24, the one which he said had fomented "certain
disappointment". "Politics is something where points are lost in
no time at all", he said and promised that the course [promoted by
the new president - Vedomosti] would remain unchanged and aim at
economic modernization, social humanization, and betterment of the
investment climate.
Medvedev said that effectiveness of management and
administration had to be upped. "I believe that we ought to give a
thought to formation of the so called "larger government" together
with United Russia, experts, society, and regional authorities,"
said the president.
TV personality Tina Kandelaki pointed out that ministers of
the future government ought to be "driven" professionals.
"Both the larger government and the traditional one will
consist of new people," said Medvedev.
Digital October co-owner Mikhail Abyzov suggested
establishment of a special committee that would formulate
proposals concerning the future government and its agenda.
Medvedev said that he did not mind a committee. A participant in
the meeting said later on that the committee would be formed later
this week. The same source added that composition of the committee
would make it clear whether or not Medvedev meant business. As
matters stand, the idea is to have the committee chaired by Abyzov
himself, its performance coordinated by Presidential Advisor
Arkady Dvorkovich. Another participant in the meeting with the
president said that it was going to be "a kind of shadow
government". When the new president only came down to formation of
the new government, Medvedev would have a head-start already.
Abyzov commented that the committee would try and make sense
of the countless programs for the new government to implement. He
added that selection of personnel for the future government was
not what the committee was about.
"A party government will be formed," said Andrei Vorobiov of
the Executive Council of United Russia after the convention.
Another ruling party spokesman reckoned then that United Russia
might form a government and suggest it to would-be President
Vladimir Putin.
Political scientist Mikhail Vinogradov said, "The
Presidential Administration is sending a clear signal that it is
Medvedev who will form the new government, and probably without
United Russia."
[return to Contents]
October 17, 2011
Medvedev plans to form "broad government", experts wonder what for
By Itar-Tass World Service writer Lyudmila Alexandrova
TASS-TVMOSCOW, October 17 (Itar-Tass) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has
suggested a "broad government" featuring utterly new people should be created in
Russia after the presidential elections. The idea has already come under
criticism both from the opposition and from experts. They say this is nothing
more but a campaigning trick.
At a meeting with his supporters on Saturday, the president spoke about his
future plans as a prime minister after the current premier, Vladimir Putin, is
elected president. Medvedev agreed to become a prime minister at a congress of
the ruling United Russian party on September 24. "We must think over how to
change in the system of state administration. I suggest that you think about
creating a so-called 'broad government'," he said.
According to the president, such cabinet "will work together with the main party
that can form such a government with United Russia along with civil society,
voters who are ready to vote for us, and even those who disagree with us."
"I have overhauled regional elites. Now it is up to federal structures. If we
succeed in carrying out this political programme, both the broad government and
the actual one, or the government proper, will consist of utterly new people," he
The president invited people to "discuss a future layout of the cabinet of
ministers, who might be its members and how the system is to function in
general." A the same time, he said that the ruling party, the election list of
which he tops, must play a leading role in the formation of such broad
government. Nonetheless, in his words, "there is nothing bad if such issues are
discussed by representatives from other parties or any other public movements."
He stressed he is "one bone and one flesh with United Russia." "I respect this
party and now I am leading the party to the victory in the elections," he said
and added that the party will face a serious overhaul in case it wins.
"If we win in December, and we have good chances to win, although no success
should turn our heads, we will have to carry out a serious overhaul of the
party," he stressed. "We must make sure that the party brings together
reasonable, decent and honest people who have not lost their authority."
In the mean time, a co-owner of the Digital October techno park, Mikhail Abyzov,
proposed to set up an ad hoc committee to draft proposals on the would-be
government and its roadmap. Medvedev supported the proposal. Such a committee is
to be formed within this week, the Vedomosti newspaper cites a participant in the
meeting. According to the newspaper, the composition of such government will
reflect Medvedev's ambitions. It will be a kind of "shadow government," says
another participant in the meeting. By the time a new president only starts to
form his government, Medvedev will already have his.
The idea of a "broad government" gives rise to numerous questions, writes the
Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper. Say, what it will be like? Will it be a subsidiary
of the Public Chamber? Or what? And this is not the only thing which is
absolutely unclear. More to it, what will be the role of the parliament in this
scenario? And that of political parties? If they join the "broad government,"
what will it entail? Will they have to give up their traditional methods on the
political scene?
The world political culture, the newspaper writes, has for a long time been using
such an important mechanism of state self-regulation as a shadow government
representing the opposition, which from time to time ultimately comes to power.
No one will say anything if the current government seeks to win support of an
"abstract public," but institutionalization of such an association runs counter
to the course towards building a party system in the country.
The newspaper cites Oleg Kulikov, a member of the central committee of the
Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF), who described Medvedev's speech
as an element of the party's election campaign. "It is a reflection of a
politician who feels as a lame duck. Medvedev understands that a great number of
Russians got disappointed with the results of the United Russia congress and
seeks to draw them to support the ruling party," he said. He called the mere idea
of a "broad government" an absurd one. "What kind of control is meant? Law
enforcers are subordinated to the president! Putin will have a real free hand in
the government, whether it be small or big," he stressed.
One of the opposition politicians, Boris Nemtsov, described the president's
attempts to consolidate different political forces as an "utter absurd." "The
truth will always reveal itself in any case," he said. "And the truth is like
this: the power seeks to stay as it is. And an expanded government is the worst
option," he said.
Experts were also critical about the president's initiative. It seems to be
unclear for the majority of them what President Medvedev really meant proposing
his "broad government" idea.
The Novye Izvestia daily quotes political scientist Andrei Piontkovsky who
believes that there came no explanations whatever on this account. "I sincerely
tried to make out what an expanded government might look like, but I didn't hear
any hints," he said.
According to Nikolai Petrov, a member of the academic board of the Moscow
Carnegie Centre, this was Medvedev's rehearsal as a United Russia leader. "But it
is a big problem both for him and for the party because it is impossible to
replace Putin with Medvedev in the party," he said. "The party's red tape will
not accept such a change."
"Medvedev is seeking to win back former voters to draw them as United Russia
supporters," said Gleb Pavlovsky, the president of the Efficient Policy
Foundation. "It would be absolutely right if it were possible. But, judging on
opinion polls, after his September 24 statement, Medvedev lost the majority of
his staunch voters."
[return to Contents]
Russian Parliamentarians Not Convinced By Medvedev's 'Big Government' Idea
Moscow, 15 October: The views of (different) parliamentary party members have
expectedly diverged as regards the initiatives voiced by Russian President
Dmitriy Medvedev in Moscow at a meeting with his supporters: One Russia members
see societal development in the expansion of the government and the overhaul of
cabinet, while the opposition fears that expert committees under the government
will replace parliament. Speaking about a rotation in the cabinet, opposition
politicians note the importance of changing the course, not the people.
Big Government
Dmitriy Medvedev talked about the need to change the system of state
administration in Russia, in particular, he proposed establishing a "big" or
expanded government in Russia, which would work together with the ruling party,
members of the public, experts, and regional and municipal authorities. Medvedev
said that he plans to discuss the structure of the future cabinet of ministers
and the principles of its work throughout the election campaign.
The president's idea for creating a "big" open government is aimed at pursuing
further democratic reforms developing the Russian society, the secretary of the
general council presidium of the One Russia party, Sergey Neverov, told RIA
Novosti on Saturday (15 October).
He noted that the idea of a "big" government is a new format, that "Dmitriy
Anatolyevich (Medvedev) has always been known for his innovative ideas".
"Such an open government will allow to take decisions with account of opinions
from the expert community, the people, the parliamentary majority," the
politician said. He stressed that this is a format for authorities that are
maintaining a constant dialogue with the people and are in immediate contact with
the people. Thus, in his view, the minister of culture should be in constant
contact with representatives of the arts community, hold a dialogue with them. "I
think this is a great, a wonder idea, which will receive popular support,"
Neverov said.
He saw that the decisions taken in this format would be backed by everyone, since
they would take into account the opinions of professionals working in the
specific fields, among other people. Neverov recalled that today many decisions
are taken in someone's favour or in someone's interests, which rouses an adverse
public reaction. (This) new government format would allow preventing such
shortcomings, he said.
Members of A Just Russia and LDPR (Liberal Democratic Party of Russia) fear that
a "big" government will replace parliament.
The deputy head of the A Just Russia faction in the State Duma, Oleg Sheyin,
wonders who will form the government's consultative groups. He said that he did
not think that a "big" government would improve the state administration system
and said that the establishment of a multi-party parliament was the priority,
linking Medvedev's proposals to the upcoming elections.
LDPR member Sergey Ivanov questioned the effectiveness of the work of a
government in case of its expansion, expressing the concern that "if there are
constant public consultations, there will be no real work". He stressed that it
is parliament that has to be in touch with the public and actualize people's
opinions through laws that must then be executed by the government "without
consultations with the public at large".
In his turn, deputy chair of the CPRF (Communist Party of the Russian Federation)
Vladimir Kashin labelled the idea of expanding the cabinet "playing at a people's
government, a different democracy".
Change of Cabinet
In the event of One Russia's victory at the election, the new Russian government
will comprise completely different people, Dmitriy Medvedev said on Saturday (15
Commenting on this statement, One Russia's Neverov said that this draws upon the
principle of rotation. In his words, the legislation on political parties
provides for the personnel rotation.
"People who are working in government today are professionals and will be
in-demand in our country," he said.
At the same time, Neverov said that personnel need to be rotated through, that
new people with new ideas and dynamism must be brought in. "This is what
development, living is about," he said.
Speaking about job rotation in government after the presidential election, LDPR's
Sergey Ivanov highlighted that "it does not matter who these people are, what
matters are the socio-economic policies they pursue".
Communist Vladimir Kashin said that even a full changeover of the ministerial
team will not empower the new government, as long as Russia remains a
resource-reliant colony.
Strong Parties
All political parties must change - not just One Russia, which cannot dominate
indefinitely - the president (Dmitriy Medvedev) said today (15 October), noting
that other parties should share in these sentiments. He expressed hope that none
of today's parties will disappear with time, that they will revitalize themselves
and develop.
Neverov agreed with the president about the need for several strong parties in
Russia. "I agree with this, such a political set up will facilitate stability in
the Russian political system, when there are responsible parties that are
accountable for the decisions that have been taken," he said.
The politician lamented the fact that there is currently only one genuinely
strong party - One Russia, which offers both a programme and ways to resolve the
issues that the country currently faces.
LDPR's Ivanov supposed that the number of political parties the country, strong
or weak, did not matter. The most important thing is that every party must be
heard and the opinions of voters who supported that party have to be brought to
life, including through legislative initiatives, he said. Ivanov said that
conveying the opinions of the majority can be done with three parties in
parliament - One Russia, LDPR and CPRF.
A Just Russia's Sheyin, commenting on the president's statements about the need
to refine the political system, which should have several strong parties, noted
that the best way to do this is "to hold honest elections and this can be done
very easily - by simply establishing electoral commissions on equal terms between
all parties".
CPRF's Kashin for his part said that the most important thing is for words not to
diverge from actions. "One can believe anything, if words are consistent with
actions," he said, responding to the president's words about reforming the
political system.
[return to Contents]
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
October 17, 2011
Experts do not know what to make of Dmitry Medvedev's "larger government"
President Dmitry Medvedev met with his supporters last Saturday.
The meeting was supposed to become a signal to whoever distrusted
his alliance with the ruling party. It is with United Russia's
help that Medvedev intends to dramatically change the format of
government after the presidential election.
Medvedev said, "I'm one with United Russia, a party that has
my respect... If United Russia wins the parliamentary election and
if the presidential election is won afterwards, then it will be a
guarantee of our continued development."
The president even went so far as to say who was going to be
responsible for this "continued development". The so called larger
government would be formed, a party government as promised on more
than one occasion already. It would be formed by United Russia,
the political party Medvedev regarded as "the most powerful
political force in the country." And yet, the government would
include representatives of other forces and organizations as well.
Medvedev knew of the demand for renovation and new faces in the
corridors of power and intended to meet it in this manner.
Political scientists disagree over the "larger government"
idea as such. Some said that Medvedev was of the mind to install a
new form of democracy in Russia. Others reckoned that Medvedev was
talking functional and institutional changes within the executive
branch of the government.
"The idea of a government of the parliamentary majority was
formulated long ago because United Russia is not a ruling party in
name alone," said Mikhail Remizov of Strategy'2011 Foundation.
"This new government will be more responsible than its
predecessors. Its key ministers will be politicians. In fact, we
might even start selecting key ministers by vote."
Political scientist Leonid Polyakov said, "Since he will be
next premier and knows it in advance, Medvedev is clearing the way
for the changes he means to introduce. He is after broad support
within the parliament and within society... Medvedev emphasized
that United Russia would be the nucleus of the future government
but made it plain that he expected to see other political parties
cooperating and interacting with United Russia. These are contours
- dimly seen for the time being - of new Russian democracy where
the principle of competition is subjugated by the principle of
cooperation for the common good."
Pavel Salin of the Political Situation Center said, "I would
not take Medvedev's words about a larger government or whatever it
was... literally. It probably means that the authorities are aware
of the changes taking place within public conscience. Aware of it,
they are trying to formulate their tactic... There is nothing
unique about the situation in Russia. We see after all that
something like that is happening all over the world. Society is
getting restless in Russia, and the powers-that-be feel it. These
latter know that they cannot allow the inertial scenario... no
more than they can afford to slow down social modernization...
Some sort of a breakthrough is needed, something that will include
public organizations and individuals into political processes."
Salin said, "The way I see it, Medvedev was probably talking
of some new structure within the executive branch of the
government, a permanent body absorbing all sorts of public groups,
even those representing the opposition..."
[return to Contents]
Russians always have 'choice,' says Putin
MOSCOW, October 17 (RIA Novosti)-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has dismissed
concerns that Russians have no genuine political choice and predicted shifts in
the ruling United Russia party's decision-making bodies.
"An ordinary citizen always has a choice," Putin said in an interview with three
federal TV channels to be broadcast late on Monday.
The premier also said the United Russia party should remain the "leading
political power in the country and the State Duma," the Russian parliament's
lower house. Abstracts from Putin's interview were broadcast early on Monday by
the Rossiya 24 TV channel.
"The office and the position is not the main thing," Putin said. "The main thing
is people's trust... There should be no blue-eyed boys, and final decisions
should not be based on personal sympathy or antipathy."
"As for the party's decision-making bodies," he added "I think there will be
shifts there."
Putin spoke seven weeks before parliamentary elections scheduled for December 4.
The United Russia party led by then-president Vladimir Putin won the previous
parliamentary polls in 2007. International observers from the OSCE and the
Council of Europe said at the time that the election was unfair and "failed to
meet many OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic
Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev have backed one another to switch roles after
2012 presidential elections. Medvedev proposed Putin for president at the United
Russia congress in late September, saying he was ready to head the government in
case of Putin's victory.
[return to Contents]
October 17, 2011
United Russia should remain leading political force Putin
In an interview with Russian TV channels, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has
stated that United Russia should retain its leading role, but changes in the
party's leadership are possible.
Putin underlined that it is not one's status or post that is important, but
rather a high level of trust.
"The main thing is the people's trust," he said. "The United Russia should remain
the leading political force in the country and in the State Duma," Putin
Putin's decision to run for the presidency in 2012 made some people think there
will be no voter choice in the matter and he will simply return to the Kremlin.
"There is always a choice for an ordinary citizen," Putin said, as quoted by RIA
The Prime Minister's interview with the three Russian federal channels will be
aired on Monday evening, but bits of it have already been broadcast.
The upcoming State Duma elections in December 2011 and the presidential vote in
March 2012, as well as changes that Russians might expect afterwards, were the
main topics of Putin's conversation with heads of Channel One, Rossiya 1 and NTV.
"There should be no favorites. And final decisions should not be made based on
personal likes or dislikes," the Russian PM stressed. "As for the governing
bodies of the party, I think that there will be changes there."
According to Prime Minister's press secretary Dmitry Peskov, this interview is a
continuation of the President Dmitry Medvedev's September 30 meeting with the
heads of the same television channels.
"As a follow-up to this interview, the three channels proposed a conversation
with Putin as well," Peskov told Interfax agency earlier. "The conversation will
deal with the current issues. The subjects will be very different. The
conversation will not be limited in time."
On September 24, at a convention of the majority United Russia party, Medvedev
promoted Putin for presidency and said that in case the PM wins the election, he
would work in the government.
"Of course, it's nice to know that people trust me as president and that my
approval rating is quite high under current circumstances. But I also know that
Prime Minister Putin undoubtedly remains the most popular politician in our
country at this point and his rating is even higher," Medvedev told the Russian
federal channels, explaining his decision. "What we are after is a political
result. We want to win the elections, both the parliamentary election in December
and the presidential election in March, not just to satisfy our ambitions."
The full version of Vladimir Putin's interview will be available later.
[return to Contents]
RBC Daily
October 17, 2011
Analysis of Dmitry Medvedev's decisions with regard to the gubernatorial corps
Author: Yevgenia Korytina
Dmitry Medvedev began establishing the power horizontal right
after his inauguration. Between May 2008 and these days, new
leaders were selected for 38 Russian regions. In every second case
the then incumbent governor was replaced before his time was up.
The president replaced all regional leaders running their
respective regions since the 1990s, some who had been appointed by
Vladimir Putin in the 2000s, and even some regional leaders of his
own choice.
Five regional leaders were replaced during the first year of
Medvedev's presidency, four of them before their time was up.
Roman Abramovich in Chukotka and Alexander Chernogorov in
Stavropol stepped down of their own volition. Nikolai Kolesov in
Amur and Murat Zyazikov in Ingushetia were ousted without an
explanation offered to general public.
Valery Gayevsky became the Stavropol governor not long before
the 2008 crisis. No wonder the first year of his governorship is
remembered for growing unemployment and wage arrears. In September
2009, however, Stavropol reversed the negative trend and got out
of the red by early 2010.
Abramovich's successor Roman Kopin found himself in a region
where foreign investments in 2007 had been non-existent.
Literally. Eighteen months later, in late 2009, foreign
investments in Chukotka amounted to $469 million. According to the
Regional Development Ministry, Chukotka in the first eight months
of 2011 was the 16th in all of Russia in terms of attractiveness
to investors. Regrettably, businessmen still find life hard in
Chukotka, as hard as it was in Abramovich's days. Almost every
second enterprise and company there is running in the red.
Promoted to replace Zyazikov, Yunus-Bek Yevkurov did not
perform all that well at first. Socioeconomic parameters of
Ingushetia remained low despite all his efforts. Unemployment in
the republic in 2007-2009 exceeded 50%. The breakthrough was
accomplished in 2010 when Ingushetia reduced unemployment to 20%.
St.Petersburg Politics Foundation President Mikhail Vinogradov
said, "Ingushetia's economic parameters leave much to be desired
even now, but the choice of Yevkurov was undeniably one of
Medvedev's best staff decisions." Indeed, Yevkurov managed to
change public attitude toward the authorities and even formulate
certain positive expectations in the republic. "Which is more than
his predecessor could boast of," said Vinogradov.
Boris Yebzeev in Karachaevo-Cherkessia was, on the contrary,
among Medvedev's worst choices. Promoted in 2008, Yebzeev was
sacked again in February 2011, even before his term of office
expired. According to the Regional Development Ministry,
Karachaevo-Cherkessia remained on top of the list of the regions
least attractive to investors all through Yebzeev's reign.
In 2009, Medvedev replaced nine regional leaders, five of
them before their time was up. With its new leader, the Nenets
Autonomous District remains the most attractive Federation subject
throughout all of Russia for the second year in a row. On the
other hand, Governor Igor Fyodorov cannot be said to be doing all
that well with unemployment these days.
No other region where a new administration was installed
after resignation of its previous leader before his time can boast
of any noticeable successes. The Orel and Pskov regions remain
among the least attractive to foreign businesses and investors.
Khabarovsk remains a region where wage arrears remain a problem
even now, and so does Murmansk.
Mayor of Moscow Luzhkov was dismissed in 2010 on the grounds
of loss of the president's trust. Four other regional leaders
stepped down allegedly of their own volition. All in all, leaders
of 19 regions were replaced in 2010. This year, new leaders were
installed in five Federation subjects and all their predecessors
resigned before their time.
Georgy Poltavchenko became St.Petersburg governor and Sergei
Sobyanin, mayor of Moscow. Vladimir Gruzdev became the new Tula
governor. It is Gruzdev who will have to do something about the
image of the region in the eyes of foreign investors - and about
agriculture as well. Andrei Shevelev replaced Dmitry Zelenin in
Tver, a region that appears to be doing quite well.
Vinogradov said, "Not that economic parameters are all-
important, you know. What really counts is the atmosphere the
governor creates in his respective region, the expectations his
administration foments, and the stimuli the governor offers to
foreign investors." The political scientist said that Mikhail
Yurevich in Chelyabinsk, Yevkurov in Ingushetia, Nikita Belykh in
Kirov, Aleksei Gordeyev in Voronezh, and Vyacheslav Gaizer in Komi
were doing just fine from this standpoint.
The list of failures (again, from this standpoint) included
Dmitry Mezentsev in Irkutsk and Natalia Komarova in the Khanty-
Mansi Autonomous District. These two regional leaders miserably
failed to consolidate the elites and essentially became hostages
of local conflicts, some of them old and others fomented by their
[return to Contents]
United Russia Issues Program Address to Nation in Run Up to Dec 4 Elections to
MOSCOW. Oct 14 (Interfax) - The United Russia party issued a program address to
the nation on Friday evening in light of the upcoming elections to the State Duma
slated for December 4, 2011.
"We all equally understand what our country should not be like. It should not be
weak, poor, breaking apart, it should not suffer from technological backwardness,
bureaucratic lawlessness, corruption, and terrorism, and it should not be
isolated," says the address posted on the party's website.
The party says it cannot tolerate "the economy's dependence on the trends on the
markets of raw materials, a dangerous level of social inequality, the fact that
people feel injustice when addressing government institutions, courts, or law
enforcement agencies, and obstacles to business initiative, at government
service, and in public activities" and promises to overcome these problems.
"We should build an innovative economy and strengthen democratic institutions and
a modern rule-of-law state. Not only incomes of Russian families but also the
quality of their life and wellbeing should grow, and this is the main goal of all
our work. People are in the focus of our attention," the address says.
Among priorities of its strategy, the party mentions modernization of the economy
and the education system, technological transformation of the economy, the
improvement of the investment climate, the creation of
an infrastructure for innovation, the improvement of labor efficiency and safety
with the aim of increasing the people's incomes and the budgets of all levels.
The party is also determined to deliver on its social commitments and work to
increase salaries, pensions and allowances, fight poverty, and modernize the
healthcare sector.
Other priorities include "eradication of corruption, open information on
government officials' incomes, government procurements, and decisions made by
ministries and other government agencies, and public examination of all of the
authorities' initiatives immediately affecting the people's property rights and
civilian freedoms."
United Russia promises to do all it can to strengthen the judicial system "based
on principles of independence, transparency, and justice," make criminal law more
humane when in comes to economic offences, and toughen criminal punishment for
violent crimes.
The party will also seek to strengthen Russia's domestic and external security
and set up efficient police and mighty armed forces.
The address mentions a number of concrete goals the party plans to attain in
years to come. In particular, it says it should turn Russia into one of the five
largest world economies in the next five years and ensure the country's virtual
independence from basic types of food, radically renew or create at least 25
million modern jobs in the industrial and public sector within the next 20 years,
and make sure that average life expectancy
in Russia should be higher than 70 years by 2013 and that an average salary
should grow by 50% by the end of 2014.
The party guarantees that it will not scrap the flat 13% individual income tax,
but at the same time declares that "the tax burden on the rich should be heavier
than on the middle class" primarily through "taxes on consumption, real estate,
and property."
United Russia has already proven that it is "capable of acting as the national
political leader and not only guide people but also rise above interests of
narrow groups," the address says.
"United Russia sees itself an all-people and all-Russian party in the full sense
of these words" and vows that it will run in the elections in order to "ensure
national consolidation for solving the most fundamental problems of the country's
[return to Contents]
October 17, 2011
United Russia election program extensively quotes Putin, Medvedev
United Russia has finally abandoned the idea of contesting the elections with the
"people's program" drawn up by the Nikolai Fyodorov Institute. The party's
official election program comprises quotes from Putin and Medvedev's party
conference speeches. It has been likened to something from the Brezhnev era.
The United Russia party has published its election manifesto, which is a
compilation of remarks President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir
Putin made at the party conference on September 24.
The "People's Program," a vast document that Senator Nikolai Fyodorov's Institute
of Socio-Economic and Political Studies has spent all summer drafting, has been
set aside.
In addition to proposing that the prime minister run for president and the
president become prime minister, the ruling duo put forward their views on the
country's further development. State Duma deputy speaker Oleg Morozov suggested
their remarks be turned into the party's election program.
The introduction to the program is virtually comprised of Medvedev's ideas.
Of the eight main principles put forward by United Russia, half were formulated
by the president: economic modernization, including through higher labor
productivity and an improved investment climate, anti-corruption efforts
(including the publication of officials' incomes; Putin's idea of declaring
expenses has been soft-pedaled), softening punishments for criminal offenses, and
an efficient police and a strong military.
The prime minister contributed two points: the fulfillment of social commitments
(higher wages and pensions), and a "sensible" foreign policy.
Two more tenets can be described as neutral the need to foster good interethnic
relations and develop the political system.
That makes up the preamble. The body of the document is then divided into several
themed sections: the economy, social affairs, education, healthcare and housing,
"justice as an absolute value," security, and increased local government. Putin's
more detailed quotes can be detected in these sections.
For example, he proposed writing off erroneous tax debts, increasing pay for
public sector employees, doubling the rate of road construction, and creating 25
million jobs.
The document also draws on the proposals Putin made at Cherepovets to develop
rural schools, introduce a lower mortgage rate for teachers, build new
educational facilities, and do away with kindergarten waiting lines.
The section "Justice as an Absolute Value" is devoted to Putin's idea to keep a
flat taxation rate, but introduce additional taxes for the rich: on real estate,
consumption, and property.
Lastly, the security section expands on Putin's proposals to reequip the Army and
the Navy, raise wages for the police and the military, and provide them with
housing and social benefits.
The chapter on "The Development of Federalism and Local Self-Government"
extensively quotes Medvedev.
Yevgeny Minchenko, director of the Center for Political Expertise, told Gazeta.ru
that he was underwhelmed by the program. He said that despite its pitch for
modernization, it reads like something from the Brezhnev era, it is tedious,
quite long, and abounds in punctuation-heavy phrases. It is unlikely to rally
people behind the party, he concluded.
[return to Contents]
Russian Communist Party Unveils Its Pre Election Programme
October 14, 2011
The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) has published the final
version of its pre-election programme on its website, RIA Novosti news agency
reported on 14 October, adding that the party's policy priorities include a
revision of the country's foreign policy, nationalization of Russia's mineral
resources, agricultural development and addressing youth problems.
The Communists' programme is based on the "3+5+7" formula, comprising three main
initiatives in foreign policy, seven in economic policy and five social policy
priorities, the news agency said.
In foreign policy, the CPRF wants to redirect Russia's efforts towards creating a
new "union of brotherly peoples", RIA Novosti continued. "Our foreign policy
decisions will be based on accelerated rapprochement of the countries that used
to form part of the former Soviet Union. Creation of a full-fledged customs union
of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan will initiate the process, followed by
the formation of a single economic space," the news agency quoted from the
party's programme.
The Communists also propose to work towards enhancing the UN's role in global
politics, reducing NATO's influence and eventually disbanding the alliance.
Strengthening of Russia's defence capabilities is another foreign policy priority
outlined in the CPRF's pre-election programme.
In the economy, the CPRF programme provides for the nationalization of key
industries, including mining, metals, aircraft manufacturing and power
generation. Under the CPRF programme, agricultural subsidies should reach 15 per
cent of the federal budget, while agricultural land is to be handed out to
farmers free of charge.
The CPRF also calls for a progressive income tax.
In social policy, the CPRF would focus on youth issues and a new law on
education, RIA Novosti continued. Education expenditures should reach 10 per cent
of GDP.
The party's pre-election programme also looks at ethnic policy issues, the news
agency said. "Our party has seriously developed the Russian theme, rejecting any
attempts to debase it with nationalism," it quoted from the CPRF programme. The
Communists intend to pursue a policy aimed at "creating a spirit of friendship"
between different ethnic groups. For that purpose, CPRF would resist attempts at
spiritual aggression and would introduce harsh punishment for manifestations of
Russophobia as a form of inciting ethnic discord, RIA Novosti said.
[return to Contents]
BBC Monitoring
Russian liberals want to revive Union of Right Forces
Text of report by privately owned Russian television channel REN TV on 14 October
(Presenter) Those who have left the Right Cause party have decided to revive the
Union of Right Forces (URF, or SPS in Russian). After the controversial departure
of (billionaire businessman) Mikhail Prokhorov, the Right Cause has been simply
unable to stop the brain drain. Very few people know now what the SPS means.
However, in the first decade of this century the party could boast of its own
faction in the State Duma. Anastasiya Pak was looking at the right-wingers'
chances to enter the same river twice.
(Correspondent) The Right Cause is dying. Long live the Union of Right Forces.
The URF is rising from the ashes. Politicians who left Prokhorov's party (the
Right Cause) together with Prokhorov, are going to revive the Union of Right
Forces. Join it or you will lose.
(Aleksey Kara-Murza, member of the presidium of the Union of Right Forces
movement) I think that by spring, we might well be ready for state registration.
This will be very hard, of course, 45,000 (signatures will be needed). And nobody
gives us any guarantees.
(Correspondent) It all started so well. In the elections to the State Duma in
1999, just a year after the founding of the bloc, the URF got over 8 per cent of
the votes. Three people, (Boris) Nemtsov, (Irina) Khakamada and (Sergey)
Kiriyenko, topped the list of candidates. The Union of Right Forces formed a
faction in the parliament. However, in 2003 the party led by Khakamada, Nemtsov
and (Anatoliy) Chubays could not overcome the 5 per cent barrier to enter the
Duma. In 2007, the right wing was represented by same Nemtsov, Nikita Belykh and
Marietta Chudakova. The party's rating was just 1 per cent, which in the tricky
science of statistics is regarded as a margin of error.
(Andrey Dunayev, deputy chairman of the Right Cause party) The URF brand died a
long time ago. In political terms, it died exactly at the same time when the
leaders of the Union of Right Forces also died, in the political sense.
(Correspondent) Very few among the URF's old guard will describe the idea to
revive the ??right-wing party as hopeless.
(Irina Khakamada, co-chairman of the Union of Right Forces in 2000-2003) Let
there be many of them, let them be incomplete, but later something will grow in
this soup. This is understandable that the party is being divided, and the Union
of Right Forces is leaving (leader of the Right Cause) Bogdanov. Those who worked
with me and Chubays are unable to work with those people. I don't understand how
they existed before.
(Nikita Belykh, governor of Kirov Region, in 2005-2008 head the federal political
council of the URF) So far all I hear is a conversation between people I respect
about the need to somehow reincarnate or revive the Union of Right Forces,
without any explanation what this organization, this structure is going to do.
(Correspondent) Any attempt to take political forces to the right recently failed
miserably. The latest example is the unregistered Party of People's Freedom.
(Boris Nemtsov, co-chairman of the unregistered Party of People's Freedom) There
are such forces, and the authorities are afraid of them. This is why they are not
registered as parties. So our only chance to be active is to write
anti-corruption reports and protest in the streets.
(Correspondent) Here is another example - the Right Cause party. They started
very well. Young, ambitious and very rich Mikhail Prokhorov headed the party.
Then he fell out with Andrey Vladimirovich Bogdanov and that's it, there is no
Right Cause. To be more precise, there is the cause, but it is not quite right.
Political analysts are confidante that there are all the conditions for the
creation of a real right-wing party in Russia now - people's wish, right-wing
leader Prokhorov who has been deceived in his expectations, and even a political
necessity, too. However, everyone is well aware that, with Russia's one-way
system of state power, a political turn to the right will certainly be very
difficult, if not banned altogether.
Anastasiya Pak, Aleksey Egorov and Sergey Reznichenko for Ren TV, Moscow.
[return to Contents]
BBC Monitoring
Yabloko party veteran says domestic demand key to Russian economic prosperity
Channel 3 TV
October 16, 2011
The 16 October edition of the "Aktualnyy Razgovor" (Topical Conversation)
programme on local Moscow TV station Channel Three presented another installment
in a series of interviews with the leaders of registered political parties ahead
of the State Duma election of 4 December. This time, host Vladimir Solovyev spoke
to Grigoriy Yavlinskiy, one of the founding fathers and the top of the federal
list of candidates of the liberal Yabloko party. Yavlinskiy explained his party's
initiatives to stimulate domestic demand in Russia, which he said was the way to
provide immunity against global financial turmoil, and argued that ensuring
equality before the law was the first step to eradicating corruption and other
socio-political problems in Russia.
Key to fixing economy - domestic demand
Solovyev asked economist Yavlinskiy to comment on the risks that another turn of
the global financial crisis bears for Russia. Yavlinskiy stressed that Russia was
"a periphery economy that just services the economies of the leading countries"
and as such, the country's financial well-being is entirely dependent on external
demand and oil market conjuncture. "In this sense, we a very unwise economy. Note
that there is all this talk about love and patriotism, yet the economy has been
constructed in such a way that if there is a little breeze there (USA and
Europe), we get an absolute storm," he said.
He argued that the key to Russia's economic prosperity was invigorating domestic
demand. "We have one colossal advantage that no one else in the world has - we
have unsatisfied demand for the most sensitive good, as regards domestic demand -
for housing," he said, before outlining a Yabloko proposal to grant free land
plots to Russians for home-building. The programme also envisages that the
government construct all the requisite infrastructure and provide subsidized
mortgages for people to help them finance the construction of new homes. He
argued that this was a good way to use the funds that have accumulated over the
recent years of high oil prices, so that this "safety net is used to create
domestic demand", which will create jobs and drive economic activity. Thus, he
said that "we can sit and wait until the crisis is over for them (USA and
Europe), or we can start to develop our own economy - give people land, give
people the opportunity to build houses, provide infrastructure - this is the
Moreover, Yavlinskiy called for a new approach to conducting economic reforms. He
said: "If our state does not give anything to the people but just takes
everything from them, resolving all other issues is not possible. For the first
time, the start of any reform or any kind of economic change should not begin
with stripping things from people and sticking to the principle that you will
live poorly, but not for long, as one reformer said. Instead, actions should be
guided by the principle that we have resources and we are giving them to you. And
then people will turn to face you. And then other key tasks can start to be
Key to fixing country - blind justice
Moving onto systemic political issues, Yavlinskiy said the root of all problems
in today's Russia is that the law does not apply in the same way to everyone.
Moreover, he said that not only has no progress been made on this, but on the
contrary - the country has regressed. He said: "We need to move (on this so) that
people feel with each year that yes, there is more fairness, I repeat - fairness.
That the courts are indeed becoming more independent of orders and money than
before. That private property can be defended, that corporate raids can be
Thus, he said that before any meaningful progress is made in fighting corruption
- which is "very serious, deep and dangerous work" - one has to ensure absolute
equality before the law, independence of the judiciary and the inviolability of
private property and assets - for example, one's business.
Moreover, he rejected the notion that any special approach was needed in the
Caucasus: "The laws of the Russian Federation need to operate there in full. And
everyone there must know that the law applies equally, whether he is a senior
official, a law-enforcer, an average labourer, or a simple farmer - they are just
people living there, the same as everywhere else. They just need some sense of
He also attributed the root of purportedly ethnic tensions to corruption: "The
issue is not about inter-ethnic relations in the first instance, but inequality -
this is the bottom line. That for money, one person is treated in one way and
another person is treated in a different way". "Local officials get bribes,
create situations that sooner or later leads to clashes and explosions, then they
find themselves on the sidelines and the entire problem become about someone's
name and what kind of facial expression or skin colour they have. But the root is
elsewhere - it is in corruption," Yavlinskiy said emphatically.
"I am an optimist. Although I do not really have any reasons for this"
Yavlinskiy said that he expected that Yabloko would get around 12 per cent of the
Duma seats if voter turnout at the election reaches 60 to 70 per cent, since the
issues that Yabloko highlights resonate with most Russians. He described Yabloko
as "a party of constitutional democrats, which was established at the beginning
of the 20th century" and which works hard to live up to its rich set of
He also hoped that people would be active in their voting and would encourage
those around them to vote. Such canvassing at the individual level, he said,
would make a "huge difference".
He said that if Yabloko made the State Duma, as a matter of priority, they would
bring up issues of housing and road construction, replacing conscript-based
military service with a professional army, separating business and government and
strengthening all law-enforcement institutions.
Yavlinskiy labelled himself "an optimist, although I do not really have any
reasons for this". To this end, his dream for Russia in 20 years' time was that
"people in Russia would believe that they live in a country that has fairness,
freedom and equal opportunities to achieve what we and our children want in life"
and that "the task before me and my party, Yabloko, is to show an alternative and
ways to do what needs to be done in the 21st century".
[return to Contents]
Russia Beyond the Headlines
October 14, 2011
Electronically verified elections
Russia's electronic voting system has a better track record than in many
countries considered more developed.
By Alexei Morozov
In 1994, when the Russian budget was more or less equivalent to that of New York
City, the state decided to begin development of the Automated State Election
System (SAS). Prior to the development of SAS, Russian electoral rolls were
printed on typewriters and ballot papers were hand-counted. In the 1993
elections, it took election officials 12 days to count the votes. SAS, which took
about a year to develop and launch, was built on a foundation of Soviet
technological innovations, but some of the world's leading IT companies,
including HP, Oracle, and Cisco Systems, also contributed.
"With the creation of the Elections SAS, we became pioneers. And to this day, not
a single country in the world has a system like ours," said Mikhail Popov, head
of the Federal Center of Information Technologies under the Central Election
Commission of the Russian Federation, in a 2009 interview with Rossiyskaya
Gazeta. It's possible that he is over-praising his creation. But the SAS has
served more than 20,000 election campaigns at various levels without significant
technological failures.
In 2009, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev proposed an upgrade to the system.
According to Medvedev, the upgrade was necessary to enhance the transparency of
the electoral process and strengthen public oversight. Last year, a state program
was launched specifically to introduce electronic vote counting, establish a
secure network for data transfer and storage, and construct infrastructure for
remote voting via mobile phone for those who cannot make it to polling stations.
This is particularly important in Russia, where in some regions the closest
inhabited locations might be thousands of miles apart.
Many polling stations are now equipped with webcams, so in theory, voters can
watch the counting of votes without leaving their computers. But the
effectiveness of this measure is limited by Internet penetration rates: According
to Yandex, Russia's most popular search engine, just 40 percent of the voting-age
population has access to the web.
One of the major technical innovations that will be in operation for December's
State Duma elections is an optical scan voting system. Voters can bring their
ballots to the scanner and a Russia-wide data network will record all the
information from it. Not only does this increase processing speed, but more
importantly, it prevents possible fraud at polling stations. If violations occur,
there would be documentary evidence to prove them. In previous elections, "ballot
stuffing" has been observed, although not a single fraud case has ever reached
the courts.
In many ways, the Russian system is more sophisticated than its foreign
counterparts. The American system, developed by Diebold, consists of sensory
terminals, also known as e-voting machines. These are tablets that run on Windows
and are connected to the Internet by ordinary, unprotected wires. The system has
been around for about 10 years, during which time a number of scandals have
occurred, most notably in 2002 when the developer accidentally posted the
system's codes and scripts in open access.
The European system, called E-Poll, is technically perfect, but it is being
implemented slowly. In France, for example, it is still a novelty. The matter is
complicated by the fact that municipalities have been asked to choose between
several types of machines that also have to be purchased using local funds,
although subsidies are available. The French authorities have acknowledged that
they are still 10 years away from a fully electronic system. Meanwhile, tests
have been suspended in Spain and Belgium, while in the UK, electronic systems are
being developed separately for each region of the country.
Some of Russia's fellow BRICS members have had success with automated voting, but
even here there are challenges. India is a pioneer in the automation of
elections. The country tested prototypes as early as 1989. However, the huge
population of the country combine with the poor development of the Internet in
rural areas and a shortage of computer systems have made progress slow. This is
also true of Brazil, which is also considered a leader among developing economies
in the creation of automated voting systems. Where it is implemented, the
Brazilian system allows for approximate results within one hour. Russia's Central
Election Commission secretary Nikolai Konkin even visited Brazil in 2010 to study
the Brazilian system. But at a recent seminar in Russia, representatives of the
Electoral Commission of Brazil noted that they can learn a lot from the Russian
experience, most importantly the challenges of using an automated system across a
large country that contains many sparsely populated areas.
[return to Contents]
Moscow Times
October 17, 2011
A Reluctant Putin Critic
By Vladimir Sobell
Vladimir Sobell, formerly senior economist at Daiwa Securities, is an independent
analyst based in London.
After Vladimir Putin took power as president in 2000, I numbered among the
handful of Western commentators who believed that Russia finally had a leader who
could steer the country in the right direction.
With both feet planted firmly in the pro-Putin camp, I argued many times during
the past decade that Putin was putting Russia on an even keel after the chronic
instability of the 1990s. If he was doing so by pursuing policies not to the
liking of the West, I thought, that was all well and good.
After all, Russia had to develop according to its own individual history and
culture rather than attempt to follow precepts from abroad. In my view, Putin was
to be applauded for his achievements, not least in making Russia more prosperous
and stable.
Now, following Putin's announcement that he will return to the presidency in the
spring, I find myself with one foot inside and one foot outside the pro-Putin
camp. To some extent, I understand the indigenous arguments in favor of Putin's
decision. Putin is the most capable political leader in Russia today. He enjoys
far more support than any other politician and is best equipped to lead the
country in the current unstable global environment.
I also realize that Russians are less than enthusiastic about President Dmitry
Medvedev, mainly because he lacks the strongman aura of his mentor, while his
reformist initiatives find little resonance among the majority of Russians, who
remain wary of any sweeping change.
But while I understand all of this, I cannot endorse Putin's decision and now
find myself a reluctant critic. Putin had an historic opportunity to consolidate
his achievements of the past decade. This would have meant choosing the course of
action most likely to ensure the continued existence of the stronger, more stable
state in whose creation he has been so instrumental namely, making way for a
successor whose credibility and authority derive solely and directly from the
By not doing so, Putin has committed two potentially fatal errors. First, he has
shown disregard for something that he has claimed consistently to hold most dear
namely, rule of law. While admittedly he has not violated the letter of the
Constitution neither four years ago when he became prime minister while
remaining de facto supreme leader, nor now by returning to the Kremlin for a
third term as president he has violated its spirit.
Rule of law is an absolute value. No one in authority can choose to accept,
reject or manipulate it to his own advantage. If he does, he compromises that
value, almost certainly beyond repair. This is the sorry precedent Putin has
established for all future leaders of Russia and the unfortunate example he has
set to Russian officialdom.
Second, Putin has created a false sense of stability. No edifice is sound if it
rests on one pillar alone. If that pillar is a single individual, it will teeter,
if not collapse, when he leaves the scene, either voluntarily or involuntarily,
meaning his mortality. At any time, he could succumb to illness or fall victim to
an assassin's bullet or suicide bomb.
Some argue that Putin had no choice that Russia suffers from a dearth of
leadership talent and that for this reason his return to the Kremlin was
unavoidable. But that argument simply does not hold water. To imply that Russia
has exhausted its ability to deliver leaders equal to the tasks ahead is absurd.
If that were the case, Russia would indeed be doomed.
What Putin has done by opting to return is merely postpone the problem of
succession in Russia. The danger is that postponement will only make his
inevitable departure all the more destabilizing. In effect, Putin has planted a
time bomb one that could go off at any time.
Former French General and President Charles de Gaulle reportedly said, "The
graveyards of the world are full of indispensable men." This remark is droll, but
it does underscore an essential truth.
A truly great leader does not cling onto power indefinitely. Rather, he knows
when his job is done and when to facilitate a safe change of guard. After more
than a decade in charge, Putin's job has been done. The longer he stays on, the
more he will devalue his undoubted achievements.
[return to Contents]
Veteran Rock Musician Criticizes Authorities, Says Soviet Union Is Back
Moscow, 14 October: Popular rock musician Andrey Makarevich, whose song "Putin is
coming to Kholuyevo" has caused a stir in society, has criticized the situation
in Russia in the wake of Dmitriy Medvedev's decision not to stand for a second
presidential term in favour of Vladimir Putin.
"I still believe that Putin and Medvedev are very different people both in terms
of character and background, and in general. It is not about whether they made a
deal in advance or whether Medvedev, so to speak, was asked (not to stand for a
second term). It is not even about the fact that, once again, we do not have a
choice: essentially there has never been a choice in this country - usually,
people would take power and stay in power as long as they could.
"But the thing is that the current authorities did not even bother to create an
illusion of choice - which means that, once again, we don't count, so welcome
back the Soviet Union," Makarevich wrote in his blog on Friday (14 October).
He admitted that he had been affected by this. "This upsets me most - funny,
isn't it? Twenty-five years have gone down the drain," the musician wrote.
There were times, he said, when "we were treated like people" - "under (former
USSR President Mikhail) Gorbachev and (late Russian President Boris) under
"This does not mean that they succeeded in everything - usually, as always,
nothing went right, but one did not have the feeling of being humiliated. And it
seems to me that the feeling with which you live in a country is very important,"
Makarevich concluded. (Passage omitted)
The song, which Makarevich recorded a year ago - "Putin is coming to Kholuyevo" -
has been posted on the internet. It has spread quickly. Several media outlets and
popular bloggers have posted it on their websites.
In this connection Makarevich expressed surprise and stressed that he was not
going to join the opposition. "I can't understand the hype around this song. The
song is about a centuries-old servile attitude towards superiors in our country.
It has nothing to do with any opposition," the rock musician told Interfax.
He also said that he had experienced no pressure from the authorities in
connection with the song. "The song was written a year ago and is regularly
performed at concerts, and several times it has been played by popular radio
stations. There has been no pressure. I am fine," Makarevich explained.
The song is about intensive preparations in a fictional town of Kholuyevo for a
visit by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. (Passage omitted) To the
disappointment of the local authorities, despite their titanic effort to get the
town ready for a visit by a VIP guest, Putin never came to Kholuyevo. (passage
(the name of the imaginary town of Kholuyevo comes from the Russian word "kholuy"
which means "lackey")
[return to Contents]
Wall Street Journal Europe
October 17, 2011
Can Russia Ever Change?
Russia has never been as rich as today and nor has it been as corrupt.
By ASHOT EGIAZARYAN
Mr. Egiazaryan is a member of Russia's outgoing State Duma and is currently
living in the United States out of fear for his personal safety.
Vladimir Putin's decision to return to the Kremlin for a third term shows that,
20 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia remains unable to
transform its political model. Russia retains a heavily centralized, highly
inefficient state with weak institutions that do not represent the people.
Property is still largely owned and controlled by government officials, civil
society remains underdeveloped and consciousness of civic responsibility weak at
By historical standards, today's authoritarian system in Russia is of the soft
variety: The apparatus of repression is only used selectively and there are
pockets of freedom, notably on the Internet, that the authorities choose not to
control. Russians today also enjoy unprecedented freedom of travel.
Yet the much vaunted "stability" associated with Mr. Putin's rule is threatened
by a lack of civic participation. I'd estimate that roughly 20% of Russian
society is progressively minded and capable of driving change. But this vital
faction is largely apathetic and sees no prospect of fundamental reform.
Marginalized by heavily managed state media and farcical elections, their
energies are going to waste. Instead of a vigorous political debate among people
with competing visions of how to run the country, there is silence.
At the same time, the ruling elite sense that Russia is set on a dangerous
course. On the surface, Russia is doing fine. Oil prices are high, the country
has no sovereign debt and the economy is growing at 4%, with foreign investors
showing little sign of being deterred by the challenging business environment.
But Russia's leaders have good reason to be concerned about Mr. Putin's next six
years as president. With raw materials still counting for 60% of foreign export
earnings, Russia is exceptionally vulnerable to a drop in commodity prices, in
particular oil prices. The legitimacy of the current leadership rests firmly on
the fact that average salaries have risen by a factor of 10 over the last decade.
But this feel-good factor is set to diminish as global growth slows, real incomes
fail to keep pace with inflation and the costs of replacing inherited Soviet
infrastructure and paying burgeoning pensions start to bite. Sooner or later,
when the system stops delivering the goods, Russia's ruling class is going to
have to cope with a crisis of legitimacy.
Russia has never been as rich as today and nor has it been as corrupt. The
remarkable work by civic activist Alexey Navalny to expose corrupt practices in
state companies such as Rosneft and to encourage official accountability is an
encouraging sign. A small but significant part of Russian society that supports
his Internet-based campaign sees an opportunity to express its frustration at
brazen theft by state officials.
Nevertheless, corruption is only a symptom of the broader problem: a lack of
functioning institutions to connect leaders with citizens based on respect for
the law. Above all, Russian citizens need a system that allows for official
accountability, the enforcement of their own rights and fair adjudication of
disputes. The volume of Russia-related cases being heard in the European Court of
Human Rights and other foreign jurisdictions is startling evidence of Russians'
lack of trust in their current legal environment.
Countervailing power does not feature in Russia's political history. The
so-called democrats who came to power after 1991 were, for the most part, not
people who had struggled against the Soviet system, but rather its privileged
beneficiaries who saw their opportunity to replace the old guard when the Soviet
Union fractured. Unlike in the Baltic States and Poland, for example, Russia had
no alternative elites with the determination and vision to move the country
toward a more successful path of development.
The situation in Russia was more like that in East Germany. There, too, a
Soviet-style political system had been welded on to a historical tradition of
absolutism. Yet even East Germans, intimidated for 40 years by their highly
efficient security services, finally found the courage in 1989 to take to the
streets and declare "We are the people." Vladimir Putin's formative political
experience was as a KGB officer in Dresden when, as the communist system
imploded, he had to persuade an angry crowd not to ransack the building where he
By contrast, with the exception of a brave few, society in Russia barely moved a
muscle in August 1991 when Boris Yeltsin stood astride a tank and declared the
end of Soviet power.
Real modernization, rather than the cosmetic sort, requires changing the
foundations of Russia's political system and developing legitimate democratic
institutions, not imitations. A transformation of this kind cannot be instigated
from above. It must come from the bottom up. The question is whether Russian
society will have the strength and will to seize their opportunity as Putinism
runs its course.
[return to Contents]
Former Tycoon Khodorkovskiy Pessimistic about Russia's Modernization Prospects
October 12, 2011
Article by Mikhail Khodorkovskiy: "Mikhail Khodorkovskiy: There Will Be No
Well, that is actually it. The intrigue surrounding the 2012-president has been
resolved. It has been explained to the country and the world that there was not
actually any intrigue and that everything will stay as it was, and that our
future and our good fortune depend on this.
Judging by my correspondence and the many articles, which I have been able to
familiarize myself with since 24 September 2011 (when the historic reshuffle was
announced at the United Russia congress), disillusionment reigns among the active
section of the Russian people.
And this is quite easy to explain. The point is not the correlation between the
personal qualities, merits and failings of Vladimir Putin and Dmitriy Medvedev.
But rather that the continuation of the Putin era is a step into the past. For
any political system or political elite a move backwards into the past is a bad
thing since it kills hope, and, together with it - the pre-requisites for a
consolidation of the active section of the people and mutual understanding
between them and the regime.
Two years ago, soon after Dmitriy Medvedev named the country's modernization as
the key aim of national development and his own policy, I tried to put a number
of questions to the head of state in my article Generation M.
The main questions were these:
- Is the third president of the Russian Federation proceeding from an
understanding that for successful modernization a fully-fledged party to this
process is needed - a modernizing class (the very same "Generation M") which
comprises no less than 3% of the country's economically active population?
- Is he willing to agree that the special conditions are needed for developing
and cultivating a modernizing class, among which the most important is to create
real mechanisms for an effective vertical mobility; which, in turn, is hardly
possible without Russia's political liberalization and a qualitative reduction in
the level of corruption in the country?
I saw (and see) first and foremost the following as the comprising the main
groups in the modernizing class potentially capable of and willing to play a
fundamental role in determining the fate of the reforms announced by Medvedev:
- Professional innovators, including the owners and managers of small and
medium-sized innovative private companies, created from nothing;
- Scientists and engineers born in the 1960s and 1970s, who obtained their
education in the USSR and have not completely lost hope of self-fulfilment in
their Motherland;
- Scientists and engineers who left Russia in the post-Soviet period and found
fulfilment in the West but who can see some prospects of some kind in Russia;
- Young specialists with great creative potential who are at this very moment
making the choice of whether to leave or stay;
- The artistic intelligentsia who have not been poisoned by consumerist glitz.
Alongside the social characteristics of this imagined social stratum, mental
characteristics are also important: the modernizing class can be made up of
people with a creative rather than a parasitical way of thinking. Those who are
oriented towards creation and not towards distributing what has been created by
other people.
At that time, in October 2009, the Kremlin representative reassured me, reporting
that the president had read my article. I thought that the presidential policy in
the sph ere of modernization would in itself give me - like all the others with
an interest in this topic - answers to the questions about "Generation M".
There are now serious grounds for thinking that these answers have been obtained.
They are that the regime's real priorities lie elsewhere.
As far as I can judge, the regime has not done and will not do any targeted work
in this sphere with the social groups, which could - and quite probably would
want to - become the foundation of the modernizing class in Russia. The most that
is offered to such people is complete freedom from state interference in their
private affairs. The state does not particularly impede them but it does not help
them either. If you want to develop a business, go ahead; if you do not want to,
abandon this thankless task. If you want to stay - stay; if you plan to leave -
no-one is keeping you.
The same individuals who embody the "pipeline economy" remain in all the in any
way significant leading positions. At the United Russia congress, Vladimir Putin
announced that once he became prime minister, Dmitriy Medvedev would develop a
"new young" team in the federal government suited to the business of
modernization. Can we believe this? Will the novelty of this team be real and not
fake? In any case, if a personnel reform is to be started, then it should be
prior to the historic moment when the very word " modernization " irreversibly
becomes the subject of universal mockery. And this moment is now very close.
People who are now associated with innovations management at the very highest
state level in our country appear to think that modernization can be reduced to
importing relatively new technology for the manufacturing of industrial goods,
which they know will be uncompetitive on the world market. In the technology
market, because they are second-hand; in the consumer market because of the
obvious price disadvantage in relation to the "Asian tigers".
Moreover, decisions on innovative systems, which will potentially change
Russians' habitat and which can for this reason clearly be categorized ad
modernizing - for example, the "Electronic Government" program - are not getting
priority attention from the ruling bureaucracy: it recently became clear that the
country, despite the triumphal communiques, is not technically ready for
electronic government and for this reason the launch of the system is being
postponed by at least a year (from 2011 to 2012). Will Putin's third presidency
help to speed up the process?
The social, political and historical dimensions of modernization are simply
ignored by the representatives of the regime - at least, I have not yet managed
to hear from them even an attempt at debating these topics responsibly.
Modernization is not perceived at all by the ruling elite as a subject for dialog
with society; it is a thing in itself, a " black box ", which may on checking
turn out to be empty rather than full. The logic of the Russian
"modernizer"-bureaucrat is like that of the well-known philosophy of Herman
Goering: In my department I decide myself what is modernization and what is not.
Corruption has increased substantially during the two years since modernization
was announced. While the parliament was adopting a law on multiple fines on an
accelerated basis (a dubious measure for those who understand how modern
corruption is organized), the average amount of the kick-back during the
allocation of public funds in Russia exceeded 30%. What modernization decisions
can be effectively implemented alongside such a level of corruption?
Finally the political system, if it does develop in any direction it is unlikely
to be in the direction of modernization. Like many Russians, I was of course
delighted that parties getting more than 5% but less than 7% of the electorate's
votes could now theoretically get into the State Duma. But it is just that the
political landscape prior to the 2011-2012 electoral cycle has become even poorer
and the real restrictions both for politicians and for voters - are even tougher.
Attempts by the Kremlin itself to revive political life and create additional
intrigue surrounding the Duma elections with the help of exceptional figures
(Mikhail Prokhorov, Dmitriy Rogozin) were unsuccessful from the outset: it is
obvious that the system for managing domestic politics is organized in such a way
that it can only descend into further simplification and the reduction of
political diversity and not rise up towards development.
The decision on Putin's third term is the apotheosis of this simplification. On
24 September 2011, the last hopes were killed - that the system could at its own
initiative voluntarily embark on democratization and liberalization and that
means - allowing at least some real political competition. As the classicist
says: "I hasten to reassure you: this will not happen". All there is to say has
already been said before me about the fact the political decisions and events of
the end of September could not in any way add to confidence in the existing
political system or the individuals personifying it, on the part of those of the
country's citizens who have preserved their human dignity.
It would seem that we can no longer expect modernization from above.
What in that case should representatives of "Generation M" do - those who
categorize themselves as the modernizing class (and self-identification is the
most important thing here).
The first option. Integrate into the existing system of "the economy and politics
of the pipeline".
That is not realistic. All the places in the system are occupied and no fresh
minds or ideas are needed. On the contrary, any inflow of fresh air may lead to
an oxidation of the existing constructs and a reduction in their stability,
which, from the point of view of the "pipeline class", is unambiguously a threat
and not an opportunity.
Second option. Leave Russia.
I will not recommend this. For various reasons, among which is also the fact that
I will not myself be able to join those who are leaving.
Third option.
Try to do what you can, proceeding from an understanding of Russia's need for
modernization and democratization as a component part and the condition for it,
to create a new modernizing class.
Go to the polls and vote as your conscience dictates (for someone or crossing out
the ballot paper) since action, any action, is modernizing behaviour. Those who
for understandable reasons do not want to vote given the current electoral
realities should take a more active part in the relevant protest actions on the
social networks - and this will also be modernizing behaviour.
The most important thing is to act! To unite and protect our civil rights, even
at the lowest - the municipal, neighbourhood level, since this is action, this is
experience, this is also a result if only a minimal one.
To participate in really helping other people, since it is only by investing your
time that it is possible to build a modern social environment.
We need to learn to leave the Internet for the "real world", learn to break the
cover of our usual slavish behaviour, we need to stop persuading ourselves that
"nothing depends on me". It does!
Modernization is the lot of the active and not of observers or time-servers.
The Internet, the social networks, are a splendid environment for seeking
like-minded people, discussing general positions, an irreplaceable mechanism for
communication, capable of uniting real citizens of a huge country in real action.
It can be said that nothing will come as a result of this. And that would be the
And it can be said that the ruling class of the next Russia could be created this
way. And that would also be the truth.
But the second truth is more precious than the first. It is possible to try to
make our country free and prosperous with such a truth.
[return to Contents]
Moscow TImes
October 17, 2011
Khodorkovsky May Be Investigated for Money Laundering
By Khristina Narizhnaya
Jailed former Yukos CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky may be investigated for money
laundering, a German news report said.
A money-laundering case against Khodorkovsky was opened in Germany several months
ago, Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported Saturday. The paper did not say whether the
case was still open.
German investigators accidentally found accounts under Khodorkovsky's name worth
between 15 million euros and 20 million euros ($20 million to $27 million) during
a tax evasion raid, the report said. The details of the account, found on a
CD-ROM containing data of Swiss private bank Julius Baer, may be evidence that
Khodorkovsky did not pay taxes.
Khodorkovsky is serving a 13-year sentence in a prison in Karelia on tax evasion,
fraud and money-laundering charges that he and his supporters call politically
motivated punishment from Prime Minister Vladimir Putin for his political and
commercial ambitions. The prison sentence stems from two trials, one in 2005 and
the other in 2010.
While the European Court of Human Rights has cleared Russia of political
motivation in the first trial, it has ruled the Yukos trial unfair.
A money-laundering case would deal a blow to human rights activists who have
rallied around Khodorkovsky, said Alexander Rahr, a Russia expert with the German
Council of Foreign Relations.
"An investigation would be a shock for those who said the money-laundering
[charge] was Putin's fantasy," Rahr said.
He expressed surprise that there was not more money in the account, calling the
balance "funny."
Khodorkovsky's head lawyer Vadim Klyuvgant, speaking by phone Sunday, called the
media report a rumor and said he knew nothing about any German investigation.
Khodorkovsky's press service declined to comment by phone Sunday.
[return to Contents]
Judges are afraid of using alternative measures of restraint - Medvedev
GORKI. Oct 17 (Interfax) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has criticized the
Russian criminal legislation, saying it is ineffective.
"The effectiveness of the criminal legislation leaves much to be desired,"
Medvedev said during a meeting with the Federation Council administration.
"I believe it's a set of stereotypes which are present in the criminal practice,
when judges are afraid of using alternative measures of restraint, believing that
they should follow the old tough conservative rules," Medvedev said.
"Sometimes it happens for very obvious reasons: sometimes it is much easier to
get the necessary evidence [of a person under arrest] than if a person who has
committed an economic crime remains under house arrest," he said.
"There is a risk of plots here, and prosecutors and investigators are warning us
about that, but the whole world is using such measures of restraint and they are
very effective," Medvedev said.
[return to Contents]
BBC Monitoring
Russian liberal wins crime debate with hardliner in TV talk show
Rossiya 1
October 13, 2011
"Two people have died in custody on remand in the capital in the past few days,"
Vladimir Solovyev said as he opened the 13 October edition of Poyedinok, a
combative talk show in which two speakers go head to head on a topical issue.
"They died innocent because they did not live to go on trial. According to
human-rights activists 50 people have perished in Moscow's remand prisons in just
two years. The figure for all of Russia runs into the hundreds."
The question this week, Solovyev continued, is why are so many people on remand
being held in custody and why do so many not survive?
The guests were Genri Reznik, a defence lawyer and member of the Public Chamber,
whose opening gambit was: "Our prison system is a factory mass-producing corpses
and appalling stories. This system has not changed one bit and it is the
successor to the Soviet gulag."
Thousands die in Russia's prison camps and the underlying reason is that the
judiciary lack independence, he continued. And poor conditions in the camps are
made worse by medical facilities that are basic at best.
Opposing him was retired Police Maj-Gen Vladimir Ovchinskiy, whose opening
response was: "The death of any person is a terrible tragedy for those closest to
him. But when a person dies while being held in custody on remand on suspicion of
committing of especially grave and corrupt crimes, we should not turn him into a
martyr. Also, we should not use this private incident for a campaign for a new
humanization or liberalization of our criminal policy. Through liberal methods we
will never beat either corruption or crime in general."
Other topics which Reznik and Ovchinskiy discussed included the length of time
taken to investigate crimes, excessive use of remand in custody over bail or
house arrest, the efficacy of "liberal" policies in tackling crime and other
social ills, whether defence advocates hamper the police in putting criminals
away, whether China is a good example to follow in fighting crime and corruption
and others, with contributions from members of the studio audience.
During the programme viewers can vote for either side by phone or text message.
Reznik won by 45,885 votes to 39,790, gaining from a late surge after trailing
for much of the programme. The debate lasted for nearly an hour and a half.
[return to Contents]
BBC Monitoring
Russian lawyers, politicians divided over need for new Criminal Code
Ekho Moskvy Radio
October 13, 2011
Reaction among Russian lawyers, politicians and human rights activists to the
proposal to adopt a more humane Criminal Code in Russia, voiced on 13 October by
Nikolay Fedorov, the head of the Institute of Socio-Economic and Political
Studies, which is overseeing work on the People's Programme for the All-Russia
People's Front (ONF), is controversial, as reported by Russian media on the same
It is important that the proposal has come from the party of power, Mikhail
Barshchevskiy, the Russian government's plenipotentiary representative at the
Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, believes. He said this to Ekho Moskvy
radio on 13 October.
"I like One Russia that brings forward what has been debated in public and among
experts for a long time as its own initiative. Over at least three or four years
practically all scientists involved in criminal law have been saying that our
Criminal Code reminds them of a patchwork blanket. Thank God Nikolay Fedorov
voiced this on behalf of the party. Being the first justice minister in the
Russian Federation, he is uniquely placed to understand how dangerous and
counterproductive punitive society is. Yes, the Criminal Code should be changed.
Yes, it should be done urgently. Yes, the system of punitive measures should be
changed, regarding imprisonment as an exclusive and not a regular measure for all
non-violent crimes. More power to him! I, for instance, will support things like
these wholeheartedly," he said.
For his part, Vadim Klyuvgant, a lawyer of former Yukos head Mikhail
Khodorkovskiy, has welcomed the proposal, saying the Criminal Code should
envisage more humane measures towards entrepreneurs, charged with economic
crimes, as reported by Russian news agency Interfax.
"The existing Criminal Code is extremely repressive and is dragging the country
backwards. First and foremost, it involves the most active part of society,
entrepreneurs. This being said, the adoption of a new code should begin with a
comprehensive amnesty, for economic crimes to start with, for which people are
convicted under the existing repressive code - and even that is not always
observed," he said.
Commenting on the Criminal Code in general, he said: "In my view, the reform is
in the offing and Nikolay Fedorov has said nothing new here. The matter is that
the code is contradictory and in the spirit it comes from another epoch." He
expressed the hope that the initiative would be of a systematic nature and not
just pay a tribute to the approaching election. "One should tackle the issue not
within the framework of the election campaign but for real, inviting
corresponding experts," he said.
Speaking to Ekho Moskvy radio on the same day, Klyuvgant said: "The concept of
liberalization of criminal legislation in the economy and economic activity,
elaborated on the instructions of President (Dmitriy) Medvedev, was ready a long
time ago. This being said, it is undemanded. Instead, other local amendments are
used, (amendments) that at times contradict each other and, which is most
important, do not change the situation for the better in general, while they are
passed off as humanization and modernization. One should start this (reform) with
a serious amnesty and in parallel with that launch work on a new, systemic modern
law that will meet the demands of today and tomorrow."
Meanwhile, famous lawyer and a member of the Moscow Helsinki Group Genri Reznik
believes that Russia does not need a fundamentally new Criminal Code or
Correctional Code for that matter, Russian news agency Interfax quoted him as
saying on 13 October.
"There is no need to adopt new criminal or correctional codes. Criminal law is
based on the principles that were elaborated and established at least two
centuries ago," Reznik told Interfax.
"Opportunities to improve the existing code are there. Crime is on the move, some
deeds that are not topical disappear from the Code, while new ones that pose
social threats and should be criminalized, appear in it. This work is going on as
it is," he said.
On the other hand, Reznik agreed with Fedorov's proposal to change the procedure
of appointing judges. "In Russia judges are recruited, by and large, from people
with an original repressive setting. When former prosecutors, investigators,
Interior Ministry and Federal Security Service employees as well as tax service
and customs officers become judges, it is clear that their former activity
produces an accusatory policy. This affects the objectivity and impartiality of
litigation. This leads to a meagre percentage of not-guilty verdicts and an
impression of unfair justice," he said.
"It is necessary that solicitors and lawyers from private companies be recruited
as judges. Their practice of ensuring citizens' rights and interests brings about
a different impression of justice in terms of moral values. Then the repressive
nature of our justice will change," Reznik added.
Politicians and rights activists
The leader of the liberal opposition Yabloko party, Sergey Mitrokhin, agrees with
Fedorov that the Russian Criminal Code needs change but believes that one should
discuss it in more specific terms, Russian news agency Interfax quoted him as
saying later in the day.
"In general, I support Fedorov's idea but specifics are necessary as to which
articles need to be changed. In matters like these details are paramount while
general speculations are of little value," Mitrokhin said and added: "I agree
with Fedorov that in a number of areas justice in Russia can be made more humane,
but some provisions, on the contrary, should be made more severe." In particular,
"the existing code is more than humane towards corrupt officials", he said.
"One can talk about making a number of other provisions more rigorous but, again,
this should be a very detailed and thematic debate," Mitrokhin told Interfax.
At the same time, Andrey Bogdanov, a leader of the liberal opposition party Right
Cause, has told Interfax that the "existing Criminal Code meets the demands of
the state", Interfax said in the same report.
"Moreover, I believe that some articles, for example, (the one referring to)
punishment for paedophilia, should be made more rigorous. But again, if
prosecutors and courts followed the existing Criminal Code honestly and
competently, there would be no questions asked," Bogdanov said.
For their part, Russian Communists believe that the implementation of the
existing legislation is preferential to alterations, Interfax reported, quoting
MP Sergey Obukhov, secretary of the Russian Communist Party Central Committee.
Obukhov described the idea, put forward by Fedorov, as "doubtful". "We are sick
and tired of numerous initiatives put forward by officials. One should not patch
the existing legislation or adopt new laws that cross out the old ones, but (one
should) work, in other words, fulfil what is Russian legislation today," Obukhov
He called for a large-scale debate on the issue among experts to be conducted, if
the opinions in society are divided.
At the same time, "over the last years the Russian legislation has been altered
so often and patched so frequently that we look a regular oddity in the eyes of
civilized countries where legislation, including criminal legislation, is not
subject to drastic changes or revision", he told Interfax.
Obukhov believes that this work on legislation is a "direct effect of the
instability of the political and economic system in a country where a very weak
parliament does not practically oppose the executive power, but is just
fulfilling its instructions, adopting this or that law", Interfax said.
Finally, Russian human rights community, represented by head of the Russian
Memorial centre Oleg Orlov, has hailed the initiative, Interfax reported on 13
October. Orlov said, however, that he was concerned it was just another election
"I wonder why this idea comes from the (All-Russia) People's Front, a structure
that was created in view of the election," Orlov told Interfax. "True, one should
adopt a new Criminal Code. It should become more systematic. It is also necessary
to change the system of appointing judges. It is necessary to reduce the scale of
applying imprisonment as a punitive measure, although one should on the contrary
increase terms of imprisonment for some violent crimes in personam," he added.
"However, the devil is in the details. The idea to elaborate a new Criminal Code
is good but it is not clear when it will be put into practice, if at all. The
(All-Russia) People's Front is an election structure while the elaboration of a
new Criminal Code is work for years ahead. It is not the People's Front but a
serious community of lawyers that should deal with this," he said.
It is not only the Criminal Code but the whole package of anti-extremist
legislation that should be changed, Orlov added.
"The concept 'extremism' and punishment for it is spelt out so vaguely in the
Russian Criminal Code as well as in a number of other laws that, on the one hand,
this concept may be applied to anyone, but on the other hand, it hinders the
fight against really serious extremist violent organizations," Orlov told
[return to Contents]
Russian Presidential Envoy Dispels 'Myth' Of High Subsidies For North Caucasus
Yessentuki, 14 October: Claims that spending of the federal centre on the
development of North Caucasus exceeds the level of spending nationwide is a myth,
according to the plenipotentiary representative of the Russian president in the
North Caucasus Federal District.
"We are coming across a frivolous interpretation of figures which creates
misunderstanding and confusion. The first eternal myth is that every citizen in
the North Caucasus Federal District receives subsidies and subventions from the
federal budget that are well nigh tens of times more (than subsidies in other
regions) - this is total nonsense," Khloponin told a meetings with heads of the
regional media.
According to him, the level of subsidies and subventions from the federal budget
in Ingushetia, the most subsidized region in the district, is R12,000 per person.
"And in some other depressed regions in the Russian Federation this figure
reaches R64,000-70,000," the envoy explained.
He added that "there are no frightening figures or money that the federal centre
should throw into the North Caucasus district in enormous quantities". "Look at
the development strategy in Siberia or the Far East - their figures are higher,"
Khloponin said.
He also said that the main condition in the federal programme for the development
of North Caucasus is "not to throw money but to create conditions, so that funds
and investors can come to the territory of the North Caucasus district, open
factories and develop the economy in the most competitive sectors".
[return to Contents]
October 14, 2011
Russia's people of science demand better financing of domestic science
By Itar-Tass World Service writer Lyudmila Alexandrova
Russian scientists and researchers are taking to streets to demand better
financing of science, and what is more vital, revising the mere method of
financing. Protest moods are augmenting among the country's intellectuals. Men of
science say they would continue their protest actions as long as the authorities
are turning a deaf ear to their demands.
On Thursday, about 500 people of science gathered on the Pushkin square in
downtown Moscow. Among them there were members of the trade union of the Russian
Academy of Science, the Academy's Council of Young Scientists, and a similar
council from the Moscow State University.
One of the chief slogans of the action was Let Scientists Work! Other slogans
read: For Increased Financing of Science, We Want to Work in Russia, Why We are
Pushed out?
Protesters demanded to increase financing of the country's key research funds and
to amend the law on state purchases and put an end to tender-free allocations.
Scientists urge to bring spending on science up to three percent of GDP, like in
developed countries, by the year 2015. Currently, Russia spends a mere one
percent of its GDP to finance research.
But it is not the poor financing that arouses biggest criticism of scientists.
The RBC daily cites Oleg Drozhzhin, a research fellow from the Moscow State
University: "There is money but it is impossible to spend it." The law obliges
researchers to comply with unacceptable rules while spending money, he says.
Thus, at the beginning of a year, a chemist must draw a list of agents he or she
would need throughout the year, and if he or she needs other agents to continue
research after an unexpected discovery, say, in June, it will be next to
impossible to obtain such agents.
Researchers have to wait for materials, agents or equipment for months,
regardless of their cost. It sometimes comes to such absurd situations when
tenders or applications are needed to get a petty test tube.
Another cause for discontent is the red tape, says Oleg Drozhzhin. A researcher
has to face a dilemma, either to waste time on writing applications, obtaining
grants and purchasing equipment virtually ignoring his or her work, or to show
naked enthusiasm and work without necessary equipment.
"We want them to give as a possibility to work. Regrettably, the bureaucratic
conditions we are in live us no space to work normally," the Novaya Gazeta daily
cites Yevgeny Onishchenko, a researcher from the Physical Institute of the
Russian Academy of Sciences.
Yet another problem raised by the protesters is the so-called "brain drain." "We
see that many young scientists are leaving Russia because they see no prospects
for their research careers," said Artyom Khromov, the chairman of the Russia
Student Union. "Two main aspects hamper successful research careers in Russia,
i.e. the red tape and financial arbitrariness."
"How one can work with such a salary? To devote oneself entirely to science and
at the same time be compelled to spend the bulk of one's time on senseless
paperwork, on filling in all kinds of applications and technical assignments, and
running around with these papers," the Novye Izvestia newspaper cites Sergei
Dmitriyev, a senior research fellow from the Moscow State University. "It will
not be a surprise for me if in a couple of years there are no real researchers
This was not the first protest action staged by Russian men of science. Protest
actions are organized by the trade union of the Russian Academy of Sciences. On
April 10, the trade union published a statement reading as follows: "The current
situation around the Russian Academy of Sciences and the entire research sector
of the country is close to critical." According to the statement, because of "the
total neglect the Russian authorities are demonstrating towards the domestic
fundamental science the Russian Academy of Sciences has only been striving to
survive in the past twenty years, instead of promoting scientific research."
The publication, regrettably, entailed no response and scientists and researchers
came to streets for protests and rallies. On May 13, researchers from academic
institutions gathered for a rally in Russia's second largest city of St.
Petersburg. About 300 people took part. On May 17, a similar rally was held in
Moscow. Note should be made that two days before this rally, protest actions were
staged by teachers throughout Russia.
The authorities showed prompt reaction to the latest rally of scientists. "We
support scientists. If they won funds through a tender, their activities should
not be hindered. They should feel free in attracting contract partners and
purchasing materials, etc.," the Kommersant daily cites Deputy Minister of
Economic Development Alexei Likhachev. Moreover, in his words, "a relevant
amendment has already been submitted to the government for consideration."
One of these days, Russian Minister of Education and Science Andrei Fursenko said
that the Russian government "is considering the issue of extra financing to the
Russian Academy of Sciences this year." The money, in his words, will go to
create more jobs for young scientists, to employ young holders of candidate and
doctorate degrees.
"It goes without saying that the spending on science, including on the Russian
Academy of Sciences, must be increased," Fursenko said. "The Academy should
objectively assess the efficiency of its research institutions and base its
organizational decisions of it. I think budgetary financing should be provided to
the leaders."
"If the red tape turns a deaf ear to our demands to change the money distribution
methods, we shall expand our protest actions and will organize a nationwide
protest action," Artyom Khromov told the Radio Liberty. In his words, it is a
quite accomplishable task to amend the laws and this way to solve the problem of
[return to Contents]
Russia prepared for any scenarios in world economy - Putin
MOSCOW, October 17 (RIA Novosti)-Russia has a high margin of safety to be ready
for any turn of events in the global economy, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said
on Monday.
"Today, Russia is fully prepared for any scenarios of development in
international [economic] trends. We have accumulated considerable experience and
we have a margin of safety in the real, credit and financial sectors of the
economy," Putin told foreign investors.
The European Union is now choking with debts and markets have been downspiraling
on fears of a default in Greece, the possibility of EU disintegration and the
slow economic growth in the United States.
Greece is sticking to tight austerity measures, including large redundancies and
budget cuts, to avoid a default and receiving bailout funds from the EU and the
International Monetary Fund, while many experts expect Greece to default in the
next 6-12 months regardless.
Putin also said that Russia had sustained the previous economic crisis of 2008
with minimal losses and was one of the first countries where the economy had
started to recover in the post-crisis period.
[return to Contents]
Russia must speed up economic diversification - Putin
MOSCOW, October 17 (RIA Novosti)-Russia must speed up diversification of its
energy-dependent economy, where oil and gas revenues account for half of the
budget, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Monday.
"We must speed up the processes of national economy renovation and
diversification," Putin, who is all but set to win the next presidential
elections in March, told foreign investors.
He said that he planned to increase the share of innovative products in Russia's
gross domestic product to 25-35 percent from the current 12 percent on the back
of an active industrial and technological policy and higher labor productivity.
Putin first became president in 2000 when he got a landslide victory just three
months after appearing in big politics. He served for two consecutive terms and
stepped down to become prime minister four years ago so as not to violate the
constitution, which does not allow more than two consecutive terms.
Putin said the key form of cooperation with foreign investors would become the
creation of full cycle productions and jobs and the location of
knowledge-intensive productions in Russia.
"We expect serious results from the development of partnership mechanisms between
state and private companies, primarily in the provinces," Putin said.
[return to Contents]
Medvedev Does Not Want Russia to Be Noted For Its Role as Raw Materials Supplier
MOSCOW. Oct 15 (Interfax) - Russia should do all it can to change its key role on
the global market as a supplier of raw materials, which it assumed in the 1990s,
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said.
"There is a trend that has taken shape in the country's development, which we
have no right to lose. We cannot play the role as a raw material appendage, which
we assumed in the 1990s, and the past decade has not been very brilliant, either.
Russia should have something more than gas and oil," Medvedev said at a meeting
with his supporters on Saturday.
"Energy resources might be different in 50-70 years. What will we remain with?
Only with gas and oil? Then we are certainly not going to be competitive," he
"Something has been done, and something new has appeared, but this is so little
and insignificant so far," he said.
Medvedev cited as an example the way documents are circulated in Russian
government institutions, most of which are in paper form.
"What is brought to me is all on paper. But these are top documents, and they
will probably be on paper even in 100 years. But all the rest should be in
digital form, so as to minimize corruption's involvement in this, so that
everything circulates faster, and decisions are made quicker, and the
bureaucratic factor should be minimized," he said.
"The governance system should be part of the digital world," Medvedev said. "I am
sure this will be very soon," he said.
In this world, "people become different, and the authorities should take this
into account, or otherwise they will fail," he said.
[return to Contents]
Moscow Times
October 17, 2011
Crisis Team to Help Mitigate The 2nd Wave
By Stuart Lawson
Stuart Lawson, executive director at Ernst & Young, is a lecturer at the Skolkovo
School of Management.
The only thing that is truly predictable about the global economy is that we are
entering uncharted territory. With tectonic changes in play, it seems inevitable
that the future, even the near future, will hold unpredictable developments that
could have a dramatic impact on both tactics and strategies of business.
Of course, it makes sense to attempt to forecast the scenarios and their
respective impacts on business plans, but it is equally important to remain
flexible, build teamwork and be prepared to react rapidly and decisively. Those
who are able to negotiate the coming rapids will be able to position themselves
well with customers, suppliers and the competition.
As a new period is approaching, it is important to remember that the past may not
be a predictor of the future. This mindset shift must be fully accepted, as
otherwise there will be holdouts who cling to their old realities and move into
denial as the crisis unfolds. It is important that this be communicated in a way
that is clear but that does not engender panic. Calm, clear leadership is
A crisis team should be assembled. Rules of the road should be clear from the
outset, all will benefit from success. There is no room for silos, and all
members of the team should buy into the common goals.
The team should then create an inventory of potential risks to the business. Keep
this exercise as clear as possible. In these situations, it is not the obvious
risks that necessarily create the greatest threats. It is important to realize
that this is not business as usual.
Once established, the risks should be categorized by their timeline and potential
impact. This is triage, limited resources need to deployed against the most
urgent and threatening risks.
A common reaction at the early stages of the crisis is hope triumphing over fact,
with management slow to accept the new environment and develop an appropriate
response. The ability to absorb new information, develop and execute an action
plan and quickly cycle through the impact of new developments will separate the
winners from the losers.
[return to Contents]
Wall Street Journal
October 17, 2011
Four Lessons on Leadership From Russian Businesses
By Konstantin Korotov
Professor Konstantin Korotov is the director of the Centre for Leadership
Development Research at ESMT business school in Berlin. This is the latest in The
Sources management series.
A couple of years ago, the Russian branch of a global professional services firm
published its annual partner promotion announcement in a leading Russian business
journal, giving the names and pictures of the newly appointed partners. To the
readers' surprise, most of these partners looked like a fresh-faced class of new
university graduates. In some countries, people of this age have not even
graduated yet: the youngest partner was 26 years old.
Russia seldom comes to mind as a place that can teach anything positive to
Western companies. But despite the multiple criticisms and problems that
businesses are facing in the country, talent development is one area where Russia
could teach some interesting lessons to organizations worldwide.
Here are four lessons that Russia has had to learn to address the lack of
business experience as it made its move away from central planning.
1. Let Your Talent Grow Into the Role.
The transition to a market economy in Russia that started twenty years ago led to
a high demand for skills and knowledge that were considerably different from
those available in the labor pool at the time. Many jobs became obsolete, while
others emerged. Companies were faced with the need to hire people without
previous experience or relevant education and offer them an accelerated
development track that comprised learning by doing.
The ability to learn, flexibility, readiness to take personal risk and a
willingness to work long hours were more important than educational background
and work history.
Many of today's most successful Russian executives in both international and
local organizations have therefore come from a background that may have held them
back in more mature economies. As a result, talent development in Russia has a
focus on continuous employee training that would be the envy of many businesses
in other developed nations.
2. Necessity Is the Mother of Invention.
One thing Western businesses would do well to observe is the numerous instances
in Russia of successful individuals in fields for which they did not initially
train. Companies were forced to look beyond the traditional fields for candidates
to fill their vacancies, and recruiters focused on applicants' ability and
motivation to learn in parallel with the job.
There are multiple examples of surgeons who became commercial directors in the
pharmaceutical or medical equipment industry, physicists who became bankers,
linguists who managed to grow into logistics executives and secretaries who
developed into HR vice-presidents.
While some of these individuals undertook additional self-generated education
efforts, such as specialized masters degrees or executive MBA's, hardly any will
have re-trained full time for their new vocation. Russian businesses prize the
ability of employees to engage in constant learning and self-reinvention on the
job. As a result there are almost no full-time MBA programs in Russia (with the
exception of a recently launched Skolkovo business school), but there is a
plethora of evening or executive-type education offerings.
3. Age Is No Barrier.
Russian companies also filled vacancies by offering jobs to applicants at an age
that most Western businesses wouldn't consider. Russian firms have become very
comfortable in giving significant responsibility to relatively young employees.
If you look at organizational charts in many large businesses you'll find
partners in their late twenties, or senior executives at large multinationals in
their early thirties.
Many of these will have started their professional experience while still in
college. Companies in Russia are open to offering positions to students who want
to gain work experience in parallel with their studies. The argument against this
is that it can lead to poorer grades, but the trade-off is valuable work
experience on their resume.
It should be noted, however, that although people are given responsibility early,
it can be taken away quickly if the person fails to deliver.
Feedback is often very harsh and direct and the pressure is high. Resilience is
important and it is a quality that many Russian workers develop early.
In some cases it means that young high-fliers become disillusioned and will
forever stay as part of what the Russians call "office plankton", but the best
and the brightest can climb the corporate ladder very swiftly.
This can be of particular benefit to women. Many are able to achieve significant
levels of responsibility by the time they start planning a family and as a
result, find it easier to take maternity leave and return to their career track.
It's a sad fact that this can still be a difficult proposition for many women in
business elsewhere.
4. Talent Development: Lead by Example.
Russian businesses regularly organize team learning events that are usually a
combination of theoretical, problem-solving sessions, individual and group
executive coaching.
The times when Russian businesses flew in leading Western professors as private
tutors for "business school in 24 hours" may be gone, but the culture of
continuous learning at the top remains and senior executives are often heavily
involved in the development of training for their employees.
One seasoned leader of a successful organization confessed that he was running
''a kindergarten company,'' in which his main concerns were the type of role
models his high flyers were for the rest of the organization and the perception
that his business counterparts had of them.
In many Western companies, talent development is still largely confined to the
competence of the HR department. In Russia, where top executives are more often
involved in the design and delivery of training programs, buy-in from
participants is consequently increased and more responsibility for their learning
outcomes is often taken.
For example, one of the most successful corporate universities in Russia was
created by Severstala leading steel and mining company with global ambitionsbased
on an M.B.A. thesis by Alexei Mordashov, the company's CEO.
Naturally, the lessons above are from companies that are leaders in people
development in Russia, and many Russian organizations are at a stage of discovery
with regards to the role of talent development and in creating successful and
sustainable businesses.
There are also many perverse cases of nepotism, lack of professional standards
and ineffectiveness of HR processes.
Nevertheless, Russia has gone through a number of challenges that many mature and
developing economies alike will be facing in the future. Paying attention to what
has been attempted and tested in Russia, analyzing what has worked and what has
failed, and trying some of the Russian approaches in other countries may
eventually change the role the country's businesses play in advancing management
practices globally.
[return to Contents]
Moscow Times
October 17, 2011
U.S. Says Human Rights Losing Out in 'Reset'
By Jonathan Earle
GAVRILKOVO, Moscow Region The U.S.-Russian "reset" has yielded no meaningful
progress on human rights, and the United States needs to "redouble" its efforts
to press Russia on the issue, a senior American diplomat said Saturday.
The unusually harsh rebuke of Russia's rights record was made by U.S. Assistant
Secretary of State Michael Posner after his meeting with environmental activists
near Khimki, the Moscow region town where they are fighting a losing and
sometimes violent battle to stop a government-backed road project.
Posner's visit to the village of Gavrilkovo wound up a six-day trip across
Russia, where he also traveled to Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod and Kazan, and met with
officials, students, religious leaders and human rights activists including
84-year-old campaigner Lyudmila Alexeyeva.
"The so-called 'reset' has been effective in arms control, security issues and
stronger economic ties, but I don't think there's been any meaningful progress on
human rights and democracy issues," Posner said.
"When somebody organizes a protest, they shouldn't be beaten over the head with a
baseball bat," Posner said at the meeting at the summer house of Konstantin
Fetisov, a Khimki forest defender who was severely beaten by unidentified thugs
last November.
"We will continue to follow what's happening in your case and to reinforce the
importance of there being justice and accountability for the attack against you,"
Posner told Fetisov.
Fetisov was left with impaired speech and memory after being beaten over the head
with a baseball bat outside his apartment in Khimki on Nov. 4, National Unity
Day. He spent 40 days in a coma after the assault.
"As a person, he's recovered. As a person with two university diplomas, he's not
recovered," his wife, Marina, told Posner as Fetisov looked on.
A $8 billion project to build a Moscow-St. Petersburg highway through the
centuries-old Khimki forest caused a spate of public protests and minor clashes
between activists and construction workers last year. Reacting, the Kremlin
halted the project in August, but President Dmitry Medvedev ordered in December
that the construction proceed as planned, saying it was too late to change
Activists say the road is illegal and accuse local officials of waging a campaign
of violence and intimidation against them.
At Saturday's meeting, campaign leader Yevgenia Chirikova listed the injuries
suffered by those present. "Pasha spent time in the hospital with a broken nose
and a concussion. Lyosha had his nose broken. Seryozha, over there, was beaten
over the head," she said, adding that none of the attackers had been brought to
However, police have detained six people on suspicion of planning and carrying
out the attack on Fetisov, including Andrei Chernyshyov, a department head at
Khimki city hall's property management committee. None have been tried so far.
Posner said the United States would "redouble" its efforts to make sure Russia
heeded international norms on human rights. He denied that this bid constituted a
change of focus for the administration of President Barack Obama, which critics
have accused of neglecting human rights in Russia.
Pressed for details about U.S. plans, Posner said: "I don't think there's more
than one way to push the Russian government harder. Some of it's private
diplomacy, some of it's public. Some of it's reconstituting the McFaul-Surkov
Civil Society Working Group. ... We want to reorient it, rethink the way it's
been done."
The McFaul-Surkov Civil Society Working Group, co-headed by Michael McFaul, the
recently nominated U.S. ambassador to Russia, and Vladislav Surkov, the Kremlin's
first deputy chief of staff, has been meeting since 2009. Its agenda includes
prison reform, migration, anti-corruption legislation and child protection
primarily for Russian adoptees in the United States.
Posner said "real differences" on human rights remained with the Russian side and
the United States would continue to amplify activists' voices and press officials
to keep open the Internet and social media sites key forums for
opposition-minded Russians.
But he and U.S. Embassy officials remained diplomatic about the matter in hand,
avoiding direct criticism of the Khimki forest construction project, which is
considered by the State Department a human rights, not an environmental, issue.
"Given that it's such an old forest, I think [the project] is a shame. But I also
drive in this city I understand the need for road construction. I don't think
there's a good choice," Cristina Hansell, environmental officer at the U.S.
Embassy, said in Gavrilkovo.
She added that it was not the United States' job to tell Russia how and where to
build. "We haven't done any independent environmental assessments," she said.
Posner's meeting with Khimki activists, however, is significant in itself as an
example of the State Department's increasing willingness to criticize and mildly
sanction Russian officials for perceived human rights abuses. The shift comes
months before the State Duma vote in December and the presidential election in
March, which Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is widely expected to win.
In a telling case, American diplomats confirmed in July that dozens of Russian
officials implicated in another high-profile rights case, the 2009 death of
Hermitage Capital lawyer Sergei Magnitsky in pretrial detention in Moscow, have
been banned from entering the United States. A list of 60 people proposed for a
blacklist was introduced in the U.S. legislature in 2010 but never approved.
Unlike the Congress, the State Department did not make the names on its blacklist
Posner was the first high-ranking U.S. official to travel to Khimki to meet with
activists. As assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights and Labor, Posner is three ranks below Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Chirikova, leader of the forest's defenders, welcomed his visit despite the lack
of any formal pledges on Posner's part.
"I didn't expect him to say, 'I'll save you!' ... For us, the most important
thing is that they're paying attention," she told The Moscow Times at the
[return to Contents]
Washington Post
October 16, 2011
U.S. reset with Russia at new stage as officials meet with human rights activists
By Kathy Lally
NIZHNY NOVGOROD, Russia Michael Posner got up at 4 a.m. in Moscow, bound for
this Volga River city where he began filling a yellow spiral notebook with
stories of newspapers silenced, human rights advocates threatened and political
parties repressed as the United States prepares for a new chapter in its
relations with Russia.
Call it reset 2.0.
Posner, U.S. assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor, describes the task as moving decisively to another level in an
area where the United States has not made visible progress.
On a trip to Russia that began Monday and ended Saturday, Posner visited Moscow,
Nizhny Novgorod and Kazan, asking activists and opposition politicians what the
United States could or should be doing to better support their efforts. He
listened, took notes, asked questions and answered even more.
The reset refers to the Obama administration's policy of improving relations that
had badly deteriorated, and Russia hands generally consider it a success. A
nuclear arms reduction treaty has been signed, Russia permits military supplies
bound for Afghanistan to cross its territory, and it has backed the United States
on Iran and abstained on the U.N. authorization of force in Libya. Progress has
been made toward Russian membership in the World Trade Organization.
Inside the country, however, democratic institutions are stunted, demonstrators
supporting freedom of assembly are beaten and arrested, and the law is often used
to punish enemies rather than protect individuals.
"In this area where we haven't gotten progress over several years," Posner said,
"we have a particular challenge."
That leaves the Obama administration vulnerable going into the 2012 election
campaign, said Matthew Rojansky, deputy director of the Russia and Eurasia
Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
"We've seen already the attack is going to be on human rights issues," he said by
telephone from Washington. "Republicans are saying, 'Russia is a bad country. Why
are you working with them?' "
So, even as the United States continues operating along the more successful
circuits of the reset including cooperating on counterterrorism it will also
venture more assertively into human rights, a course that has less chance of
success, he said.
"It's reset 2.0," Rojansky said. "The core of the software remains, but you get
additional features."
'A very important signal'
Thursday found Posner and Thomas O. Melia, deputy assistant secretary in the
bureau, in Nizhny Novgorod, a city of 1.2 million about 250 miles east of Moscow.
Uncomplaining about a minibus that lurched at stoplights and bucked over potholes
and disregarding a serious lack of sleep, they started their interviews over
coffee in a cozy cafe.
"Keep meeting us like this," said Stanislav Dmitrievsky, who investigates
killings and disappearances in Chechnya and was convicted of extremism in 2006.
"The authorities can keep talking about us as a marginal group, but you're giving
them a very important signal."
Dmitrievsky was prosecuted for publishing a letter from a Chechen separatist but
says the real reason was that his organization, the Russian-Chechen Friendship
Society, investigates mass murders and other abuses by Russian soldiers. He got a
suspended sentence of two years only because European and American supporters
fought hard for him, he said. The U.S.-financed National Endowment for Democracy
"stayed with me through it all," he said.
Although Dmitrievsky avoided jail, his organization was outlawed and now operates
officially from Finland.
"I'm head of a Finnish NGO," he said, laughing. "The legal entity has emigrated,
but the person has remained."
Now, he's working on identifying the chain of command in the Russian military
responsible for the deaths of civilians in a Chechen village in February 2000.
"We want to show who is responsible for what," he said. "If we manage to get at
least several orders for arrest, we will be satisfied."
Dmitrievsky pushed for the United States to take action against individuals
rather than issuing ineffective broadsides, praising the Magnitsky list, an
effort by Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) to ban visas for Russian officials
connected to the death in pretrial detention of Sergei L. Magnitsky, a
whistleblowing lawyer.
"This is effective," Dmitrievsky said. "They steal their money here but prefer to
spend and keep it somewhere else in the free world."
Emily Navruzova, the young and energetic editor of the Nizhny Novgorod edition of
Novaya Gazeta, an independent newspaper, said that the authorities have
intimidated journalists and that most people are afraid to say publicly what they
"When we got a new mayor, I tried to get some comment about him," she said. "Only
one person dared to say anything, and she was drunk. She called me back early in
the morning and begged me not to quote her."
'Get involved'
The day was only beginning. Down the street they went to the Committee Against
Torture (name names instead of issuing reports) and met the head of the Public
Monitoring Commission of Prisons (we have no money to travel to prisons) and the
leader of the Intersoyuz migrant rights group (help us be heard). The local
television station recorded a long interview, and Posner talked to students at
the Higher School of Economics.
"Is it good that we have a president like Mr. Putin?" asked Irina Tolkocheva, a
19-year-old management student.
"That's for Russians to decide," Posner replied.
"What can be done about corruption?" asked her friend, Julia Kovalyova, also a
management student.
"It's up to you and everyone in this room to get involved and say this is the
kind of country we want," he said.
"We're going to tackle these issues with all of our energy," he said later, as
the van lurched onward and he reflected on what he had heard. "We're going to
sustain them and get results."
The last stop was the Sakharov museum, through a dark and littered courtyard to
the small apartment at 214 Gagarin Ave. where Andrei Sakharov, the hero of Soviet
science turned dissident, lived in internal exile from 1980 to 1986, constantly
watched by the KGB.
Posner began his career working for the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and
had organized international petitions on Sakharov's behalf. Eventually they met
in 1987, when Posner visited Moscow on an American Bar Association trip.
He never forgot the man or the moment. Sakharov gave him letters to take to
family members in the United States. At the airport, the KGB opened his suitcase
and dumped out the contents, spilling the letters on the floor.
"They took them all," he said, his face looking stricken, still.
Soon it was time to get back into the van. At 9:20 p.m., the little group boarded
the overnight train to Kazan. At 6:15 a.m. they would arrive and begin another
[return to Contents]
BBC Monitoring
Russian military worried about missile defence after 2015 - expert
Text of report by privately owned Russian television channel REN TV on 15 October
(Presenter) The talks between Russia and the USA on the missile defence system
have practically failed. This was how, undiplomatically, the USA's new ambassador
to Russia Michael McFaul described the situation. Moscow is indignant that the
Americans yet again have failed to take its opinion into account. Kremlin has
promised a commensurate response. And the problem can be resolved, according to a
Kremlin source, I quote, "at a low cost and effectively", end of quote. Experts
are pondering: what does this mean? Most likely, this means the planned
re-armament of the Russian strategic nuclear forces and the strengthening of its
own missile defence system. The main thing is not to be too late.
(Igor Korotchenko, editor-in-chief of the Natsionalnaya Oborona (National
Defence) magazine) The situation will be dangerous starting after 2015. This is
the conclusion made by experts in the Russian General Staff. At the moment this
is a stage of preparations for the deployment of missile defence elements in
Europe. But as of 2015 this system will be able to intercept a limited number of
Russian ballistic missiles. And in this respect the situation will become
unpleasant, when Russia's capabilities in nuclear deterrence will be undermined
(Presenter) Russia will be unable to endure an open arms race. Now it is
important to confirm the reliability of new types of weapons in response to open
political blackmail.
[return to Contents]
New US envoy's comments on missile defence seen disregarding Russian interests
Rossiyskaya Gazeta
October 14, 2011
Commentary by Yevgeniy Shestakov: "McFaul's Reset. The Future US Ambassador to
Moscow Refused To Take Account of Russia's Interests in Questions Pertaining to
Missile Defense"
The US Administration will not sign any legally binding agreement with Russia
that would restrict American missile defense systems in any way.
This was stated at hearings in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations by the
next American ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul. In his words, from the very
beginning President Barack Obama's administration has seen the "reset" as a means
for "promoting American national interests." And it is entirely satisfied with
the results achieved: "Americans and Russians should be proud of the way
relations between them have been developing in the past couple of years." But in
the future, it would appear, there will be nothing of which to be proud.
The statements made by McFaul in Congress leave no possibilities for diplomatic
maneuver in talks for either side. There is no doubt that the harshness of the
future ambassador's tone is partly to be explained by the strong internal
political pressure that the Obama administration experiences whenever Russian
topics are discussed.
The Republicans accuse their opponents of spinelessness and excessive
tractability in the dialog with Moscow on issues pertaining to arms. The charge
amounts almost to one of betraying national interests -- an extremely painful
accusation for Obama on the eve of presidential elections.
And McFaul, as one of the authors of the "reset," is inevitably forced to become
a "hawk" in order for his candidacy as ambassador to Russia to be approved by
Congress. But there is also another explanation for McFaul's "dove song." As soon
as Moscow began to talk about its own national interests and denoted a "red line"
that it does not intend to cross, the negotiating process entered an impasse.
And McFaul himself was left in an ambivalent position. He simply was unable to
explain what he does not like about Russia's demand to sign with the United
States a legally binding agreement that the American programs will not undermine
our country's potential for strategic deterrence. However, he did not even
attempt to do so. On the other hand, he stated that the United States has assured
Moscow in oral form that the missile defense systems are not aimed against
Russia. At what stage Washington will take back the oral guarantees given to our
country, the future ambassador did not clarify. But it is possible to assume that
this will inevitably happen: After all, as the high-ranking diplomat explained to
Congressmen, "We will move forward in the sphere of missile defense with Russian
cooperation or without it."
What this movement looks like, McFaul described in the form of four phases. In
the first phase, ships equipped with radar complexes and interceptor missiles
will appear in the Mediterranean. Another radar will be established in Turkey.
Mobile batteries will appear in Romania by 2015 and in Poland by 2018. Two years
after that, these missiles will be replaced by improved ones. They will ensure
the protection of all the NATO countries against ballistic missiles. To whom
these missiles will belong, McFaul once again diplomatically did not clarify.
Although inferences suggest themselves.
These plans do not take account of Russia's national interests even indirectly.
But judging by McFaul's statement, Washington does not intend to undertake
anything in order to establish cooperation with Moscow in issues pertaining to
missile defense. The negotiating process is continuing, although possibilities
for seeking mutually acceptable solutions are dwindling all the time. The White
House knows of the Russian side's desire to "cast an all-embracing glance at the
prospects of reducing tactical nuclear weapons." But the Americans do not like
such an approach, which would include guarantees in the sphere of missile
defense. Judging by McFaul's statement, they are solving their own strategic
tasks only, paying no heed to Moscow's interests in the defense sphere.
Nevertheless, the impasse in the negotiating process with Russia, which was
openly mentioned by McFaul, will not lead to the a utomatic cessation of the
dialog on missile defense on Moscow's part. This decision to a large extent bears
a tactical character, and is based on the expectation of possible shifts in the
American position after the presidential elections. And also on external
circumstances that the American analysts did not consider in their conclusions.
At the same time, the White House's public unwillingness to take account of the
interests of its "reset" partner in issues pertaining to national security brings
to mind the "double game" that the United States plays when discussing the
prospects of missile defense. Especially when a man whose very mission consists
of narrowing the differences in the American and Russian positions -- the future
US ambassador to Russia -- talks of an unwillingness to listen to Moscow's
arguments. Talks on missile defense between our country and the United States
will undoubtedly be continued. But it is highly naive to expect that their
American participants will change their position without blessing from above. And
that means that Russia, while not renouncing the "reset" on other foreign policy
tracks where common interests are still maintained, should prepare itself for an
appropriate response in the defense sphere. Because the deployment of an American
missile defense system near Russia's borders cannot be stopped by conversations
[return to Contents]
China Said to Be Reaping All the Benefits of Ties with Russia
Moskovskiy Komsomolets
October 13, 2011
Article by Yekaterina Kuznetsova: "Final Chinese Error -- Russia's 'Main Ally' in
the East is Accomplishing Its Own Economic and Political Tasks at Our Expense"
During recent years, Russia's leaders have been fairly adept at creating and
sustaining myths - about the people, about the country, and about themselves.
However, political fairytales made up to please the electorate tend to collapse.
One of the most important and intensely cultivated myths - of Russia's unique
geographical position, which supposedly pre-determines its "Eurasian" nature - is
being tested by reality during Vladimir Putin's visit to China. And it is falling
apart at the seams.
In our society it is customary to believe that our size is an absolute
competitive advantage, which can be converted into money at a click of our
fingers by monopolizing transit flows between Europe and Asia for ourselves. In
other words, we tend to think that there is no way that if not the world economy,
than certainly world logistics could manage without Russia.
The aspiration of the national leader, whom the thought of the country's scale
has not given a moment's peace since his first presidency, to see just as
powerful and loyal partners in the East as in the West, serves as the political
superstructure for the myth. In other words, he wants to get up from both knees,
having firmly installed one window that looks to Europe and one that looks to
As has often happened in multi-directional Russian politics, Russia's "Asian leg"
starts to get stronger at the moment when its European leg starts noticeably "to
limp". And right now, the searches carried out at Gazprom's European offices, the
cut in fuel purchases by Turkey, and the disputes with European consumers
surrounding gas prices, have fuelled the desire to prove both to ourselves and to
the world: Russia is not only a great European but also a great Asiatic power.
But what has Asia got to do with this? In Asia, Russia's foreign policy was
directed towards China back at the end of the 1990s, and it was "limited" to it.
Thanks to this, the PRC (People's Republic of China) became the third space power
in the world, acquired a new resource base close to its borders, and gained a
loyal foreign policy ally. And against the background of the partnership it
failed to establish with Japan, and the cooling in its relationship with India,
China swelled up like a boil in Russia's foreign policy. But the pro-Chinese
orientation did not help us either to balance our relationship with other
partners, or to develop our own Far East.
The program of Putin's visit to China demonstrates that we are not succeeding in
establishing an equal partnership with the Chinese. As the famous American
political scientist Samuel Huntingdon predicted fifteen years ago, the agenda is
being dictated from Beijing where they have long been accustomed to concessions
on the part of Russia. From 2007 to 2009, we were unable to adjust the price of
oil supplied under contract with Rosneft. For five years, we have been unable to
agree the price for the gas, which we want to supply to China from 2015. In 2009,
we were unable to get anything useful out of the border cooperation program,
which as a result led to the development of oil fields in Russia and the
construction of industrial enterprises on the Chinese side to refine our raw
materials, and dozens more local roads and railroads and border crossings serving
these raw materials exports. While the "Partnership for Modernization" with China
is altogether a national humiliation - since a country, which 20 years ago was
only selling us towels and thermos flasks, will be helping to modernize Russia.
Russia has long been not only a raw materials but also a political appendage for
China. More than 50% of its exports can be accounted for by goods from the raw
materials and minerals group, and the proportion of manufactured goods has fallen
from 20-22% at the end of the 1990s to 1.5% today. China has dropped from first
to fifth place among buyers of Russian weapons - but it now makes them itself,
often using pirated technology, and it competes with us for the markets of poorly
developed countries. Moreover, i t often does not even inform us. However, the
Friendship Treaty of 2001 obliges us to "consult" on all serious issues in world
politics - so we block the resolution condemning the Zimbabwean leader, we
amicably vote for the Syrian dictator at the UN Security Council, we denounce the
air strikes against Libya together, and unanimously support Sudan's criminal
And what do we get in exchange? Have we become a bridge between Europe and Asia?
Alas, no.
Less than 1% of European trade passes through Russian territory - although the
proportion reached 11% just before the end of the Soviet era. China is not
backing us but bypassing us: seven of the ten largest ports in the world are now
Chinese, and ours are not even among the first "fifty". Pipelines from Russia to
China are still only at the construction stage, while those from Central Asia
(the gas pipeline from Turkmenistan and the gas pipeline from Kazakhstan) are
already operating. Only the prime minister can drive along the roads in our Far
East, while on the Chinese side, multi-lane high-speed highways extend to the
borders of the former USSR.
China already controls 40% of the oil and gas sectors of Kazakhstan and is the
main trading partner and investor of almost all the countries of Central Asia. It
is essentially already implementing its "New Silk Road" project, and in fact
depriving Russia of the status, revered as unshakable by our elite, of bridge
between Europe and Asia.
Why has the idea of such a bridge not become a reality? Because it is paved with
good intentions and in actual fact leads not to Asia but to a dead end called
"the Russian Far East". We are trying to build a bridge over territory where
there are neither enough people, nor an infrastructure; we are building it for a
single client who has alternative transit routes and who is extremely skilful in
using his monopoly position.
The size of our territory is not an advantage but a disadvantage for such an
archaic country as Russia. It demands extraordinary efforts for it to be
developed and for it to be maintained in a civilized state. But we have not
conceived of anything new in the development of our territory since the
disintegration of the USSR (with the exception of mobile communications and the
Internet, which again were not invented by us).
We bury pipelines in the ground, limiting our retail markets, and condemning
ourselves to price servitude. Having imagined that China might become an
alternative to Europe for us, we for some reason think that China, which is still
not even close to having reached a European level of development, will buy raw
materials from us at European prices. But China is not the EU; there is no tough
ecological legislation there and its energy balance is based on cheap coal, which
is mined in abundance in the country, and to the price of which the Chinese also
intend to tie the prices of oil and gas. And this means a 35% discount in
comparison with the prices, which European purchasers pay.
Moreover, China has a lot of experience of obtaining raw materials from
countries, which it treats like colonies: from Myanmar and Indonesia to Angola,
Zimbabwe and Sudan. So the Chinese are simply not accustomed to equal trade in
this sphere - hence "Sechin's silence" about how the PRC's debt for Russian oil
supplies was settled, and hence the desire to obtain raw materials at
artificially low prices in repayment of the loans of Rosneft and Transneft.
We have been so accustomed to having an economic and political monopoly in
Eurasia since Soviet times that we have not noticed how the Chinese have acquired
a monopoly over us and are also dictating to us the terms for transit, and
prices, and the rules for building infrastructure facilities. Why are we not
surprised that the Chinese themselves are building the gas pipelines from
Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to Xinjiang and that we are building them at our own
expense from Russia to China? Usually, if the customer needs them it is he who
has to sort things ou t. Who needs trade between Russia and China the most, and
what does this mean for the future of our country?
Several years ago, the myth of Russia's specialness was interpreted in an
original manner by a well-known Russian political scientist who stated that the
West was "a technological appendage" of Russia. On the threshold of Putin's visit
to China it was stated that China could become Russia's "industrial appendage".
If there is nothing but appendages all around, it would actually be nice to know:
who are we then?
[return to Contents]
International Herald Tribune
October 17, 2011
Russia's Eastern Anxieties
By RAFFAELLO PANTUCCI AND ALEXANDROS PETERSEN
Raffaello Pantucci is a visiting scholar at the Shanghai Academy of Social
Sciences. Alexandros Petersen is an adviser at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars in Washington.
BEIJING Traffic around Tiananmen Square was even worse than usual last week as
President Vladimir Putin rolled through town to cement the supposedly flowering
Chinese-Russian relationship. A series of high-level deals were signed between
Chinese and Russian state-owned enterprises and China announced a substantial
infusion into the new Russian Direct Investment Fund.
While cordial, an unspoken undertone to the meetings was Russian concern about
growing Chinese influence in the former Soviet Union and particularly Central
Just before his visit to Beijing, Putin had announced a desire to form a new
Eurasian Union that would tie a number of former Soviet states back into the
Russian orbit. Hands immediately starting wringing in Brussels. At this time of
E.U. weakness, the Eurasian Union was seen to be aimed at counterbalancing
Western institutions.
These concerns are largely ill-founded. While the new organization is clearly an
effort by Russia to reassert authority over its old dominions, it is in fact
aimed East rather than West. Russia is far more concerned by growing Chinese
influence in its backyard than anything the West is throwing its way.
The core of Russia's concerns is the slow but steady progress of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization, originally set up in the post-Cold War period to define
borders between its five members China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and
Tajikistan ( later joined by Uzbekistan).
But in the last 10 years the S.C.O. has evolved into the most interesting, and
perhaps consequential, example of Chinese diplomacy. As a Chinese scholar put it
to us the other day in Beijing, the organization went from being focused on
regional security to honing in on regional development a trajectory that accords
tidily both with China's and the Central Asians' interests.
While nominally an equal partner to all members, Russia has felt like a junior
partner in the S.C.O. Once one of the two poles in the world, Russia is now
considered among the ranks of new rising powers not a bad group to be in, but
clearly a step down from its previous position in global affairs.
Moscow has sought to counter this by retaining links and authority among former
Soviet republics. Those in Europe have now been absorbed into the European Union,
but the Eurasian states have remained within the Kremlin's sphere of influence,
bound by a latticework of organizations like the Collective Security Treaty
Organization, the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Eurasian Economic
The S.C.O. was initially ignored by Russia when it was set up a decade ago, but
it has steadily developed into an increasingly important actor that has become a
vehicle for China's push to develop Central Asia.
China has focused on trying to turn the S.C.O. from a security-focused
organization into an economic bloc, a policy predicated on the knock-on effect
that a stable and prosperous Central Asia would have on China's underdeveloped
Xinjiang Province.
Using its deep pockets to pour money into the poor and isolated Central Asian
states, China has secured energy contracts, worked on hydroelectric plants and
helped develop infrastructure from roads to telephone systems.
But China has gone beyond hard-nosed economics, developing a holistic strategy
that attempts to bring Chinese soft power to bear on the region. China has
established Confucius Institutes to teach Chinese in all the Central Asian states
but Turkmenistan, and has also helped develop an S.C.O. University that brings
together some 50-plus universities across China and Eurasia.
As part of a push to develop the S.C.O. as a cultural entity, as well as one
focused on security and economics, these are admittedly baby steps, but there is
some evidence of success. Growing numbers of Central Asian students can be found
at Chinese Universities and reports from Confucius Institutes in the region point
to the children of affluent families trying to learn Mandarin.
This is perhaps the greatest threat to Russia's powerful legacy in the region.
Moscow has no money to spend, so it has been happy to allow China's investment in
Central Asia, as long as Russia retains cultural predominance. That is starting
to slip. Putin's efforts at a Eurasian Union thus appear to be a rearguard action
to stem the tide of increasing Chinese omnipotence in Russia's backyard.
[return to Contents]
Russia Doesn't Expect Gas Pact During Medvedev's Ukraine Visit
By Lyubov Pronina
Oct. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Russia doesn't expect to reach a new natural-gas supply
agreement with Ukraine, which is seeking lower prices for the fuel, during
President Dmitry Medvedev's visit to Russia's neighbor tomorrow.
While Medvedev will discuss energy with his Ukrainian counterpart Viktor
Yanukovych, "we don't plan to sign any commercial contracts," the Russian
leader's foreign-policy aide Sergei Prikhodko told reporters in Moscow today.
Alexei Miller, chief executive officer of OAO Gazprom, will accompany Medvedev to
Donetsk, in eastern Ukraine, Sergei Kupriyanov, a spokesman for Russia's
gas-export monopoly, said today by phone.
Ukraine is seeking to revise the terms of its gas-supply and transit contracts
with Russia to help unlock the next tranche of a bailout loan from the
International Monetary Fund. Yanukovych, who has called the existing accord
"discriminatory, unfair and enslaving," wants to cut the price to $230 per cubic
meter from next year's expected level of $415.
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko was sentenced to seven years in
jail last week for abuse of power by signing the 10-year gas agreements with her
Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in 2009. Russia's Foreign Ministry said Oct.
11 that her conviction appears to be politically motivated and has an
"anti-Russian" flavor.
Ukraine's questioning of gas contracts with Russia is "dangerous and
counterproductive," Putin said the same day. A price dispute between the two
countries disrupted deliveries to at least 20 nations for two weeks amid freezing
temperatures in January 2009.
Prikhodko declined to say whether Medvedev and Yanukovych, who will meet at a
forum on economic cooperation, would discuss Tymoshenko.
[return to Contents]
Center for American Progress
October 13, 2011
The Tymoshenko Verdict and Ukraine's European Future
Western Policymakers Need to Focus on the Institutional Rot in Europe's Eastern
By Samuel Charap
Samuel Charap is the Director for Russia and Eurasia and a member of the National
Security and International Policy team at the Center for American Progress.
Yulia Tymoshenko, Ukraine's former prime minister and current opposition leader,
was sentenced to seven years in prison by a Kiev court on Monday. Tymoshenko was
found guilty of abuse of power for signing the January 2009 governmental
directives to conclude gas agreements with Russia, instead of seeking approval
from the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The charges are a farce for a number of
reasons. But from the start, the proceeding against her has been the
manifestation of a political vendetta, not the rule of law, so her conviction
should come as little surprise. Unsurprising as well is the weakness of the
Ukrainian judiciary, which has a long history of carrying out the will of those
in power.
What is surprising is the depth of shortsightedness of those behind the trial,
widely assumed to be led by President Viktor Yanukovych. The conviction of
Tymoshenko will only serve to deepen the already-gaping divides in the Ukrainian
polity. Yanukovych cannot be the president of all Ukrainians if he locks up the
person that more than 40 percent of them voted for less than two years ago.
Surprising, too, are the expressions of surprise at the verdict by Western
observers and governments alike. The fact is that the prospects for substantive
European integration in Ukraine hit a brick wall long ago. The narrative,
however, has lagged behind.
Ukraine has made remarkable strides in its 20 years of independence, but even
during the period of Orange rule from 2005 to 2009, it was far from a
consolidated democracy with strong political institutions. What made Ukraine
different from the post-Soviet norm was a combination of a more civically active
population and strong political cleavages (mostly on regional lines) that
produced what one analyst described as "pluralism by default": "cases in which
the proximate source of political competition is less a robust civil society,
strong democratic institutions or democratic leadership and much more the
inability of incumbents to enforce authoritarian rule."
Indeed, Tymoshenko went from prime minister to opposition leader through a
reasonably free and fair election. But the fact that Yanukovych (who lost the
vote by only 3.5 percent) was able to then use the judiciary to eliminate her as
a potential political challenger points to something we should have already
known: The Ukrainian courts are regularly manipulated by their political patrons
in the executive branch.
In 2007, for example, then-President Viktor Yushchenko, widely touted as a
democrat, abolished a court that annulled one of his decrees on constitutional
grounds. After three days, he reversed that decision, but an hour later had
second thoughts and decided to create two new courts to replace the one that had
ruled against him, and one of these gave him the result he wanted. To expect a
strong judicial branch to have emerged under such conditions would have been
unrealistic, to put it mildly.
With such weak political institutions, it was wrong to call "Orange" Ukraine a
democracy without adjectives, as opposed to a nascent democracy, partial
democracy, or a political system with important democratic components. Yet
Western leaders and analysts consistently did so, which apparently blinded many
to the major shortcomings of Ukraine's political system, some of which arguably
got worse in the "Orange" period.
It would be one thing if a country far away from the West were so consistently
mislabeled. Ukraine is in Europe, though, and it now borders both European Union
and NATO member states. Policymakers in both organizations and their members'
capitals therefore operated on the assumption that Ukraine, like its former
communist neighbors to its West, would pursue a path of reform that could
eventually lead it to be a candidate for membership in Euro-Atlantic
The Tymoshenko verdict is just the latest indication that the transition paradigm
that worked so well in Central and Eastern Europe after communism is simply not
working farther east.
It is worthwhile to think back to the common features of those inspiring
transformations in countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic. For the most
part, they all shared a broad societal and elite consensus on membership in the
Euro-Atlantic institutions and the historical mission of returning to Europe. It
was this consensus that gave politicians space to make difficult yet decisive
market reforms and to dismantle the communist state apparatus. They also shared
genuinely pluralistic political systems with robust institutions, and active
civil societies that play important roles in public life.
Ukraine, along with all of the non-Baltic former Soviet republics, has not been
so lucky. Elites there have little interest in undertaking the kind of reforms
necessary for European integration, which would require them to relinquish their
stranglehold on politics and control over the economy. The society is
pro-European in so far as that implies European living standards and visa-free
travel, but is not ready to radically transform itself like its Western neighbors
did. Civil society is vibrant but weak and politically marginalized.
Despite these differences, European and U.S. engagement with Kiev has largely
been based on providing a membership path or some version of "membership lite."
Indeed, the Tymoshenko verdict comes as the European Union is concluding
negotiation of a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement, or DCFTA, as part
of a broader EU-Ukraine Association Agreement that includes visa liberalization
and other measures. The DCFTA is no typical free trade dealit requires
approximation of EU laws and standards and therefore massive institutional change
in Ukraine. Essentially, it requires Ukraine to take the steps that aspiring
members did, yet withholds the promise of membership.
Clearly, the Tymoshenko verdict will make signing the deal politically difficult,
if not impossible. But it should also occasion a bit of a rethink in Brussels and
Washington. Why is Europe integrating with a country that is not reforming and is
arguably regressing?
Some argue that if Europe doesn't proceed with integration with Ukraine, Russia
will, and that's reason enough. Others contend that the DCFTA will lay the
groundwork for long-term change in Ukraine by providing an external reformist
pull to substitute for the absence of an internal push.
Both justifications for the policy represent radical departures from previous
practice in post-communist Europe. Earlier integration rounds were supply-driven:
aspirant countries transforming themselves through often painful reforms (the
internal push that Ukraine lacks).
Indeed, institutional membership for new aspirants was intended to, first and
foremost, facilitate this transformation from command economy and party state to
secure market democracies. It was a tool, both in terms of the incentive that
membership represented to elites and the deep engagement of the accession process
with its benchmarks, monitoring, and so on. It was not an end in itself; after
all, states can reach European standards without joining Euro-Atlantic
institutions. Norway, for example, is certainly a European country despite not
being a member of the European Union, and Finland is a secure democracy but not a
NATO member state.
What is needed for Ukraine, as well as Moldova, Georgia, and other states of the
former Soviet region, is a renewed focus on the societal building blocks for the
successful transformations in Central and Eastern Europe, and less focus on
current elites. Nurturing the "grass roots" of reformfuture generationsand the
micro-level institutional developmentsuch as the courtsare the only way to break
through the post-Soviet morass of corrupt, authoritarian rule. Washington and
Brussels must look beyond elections and individual leaders to the institutional
rot that has come to the fore with the Tymoshenko verdict. Fixing it won't be
easy or quick, but it is a prerequisite if we want Ukraine to be a part of
[return to Contents]
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
October 17, 2011
An update on the state of affairs in the self-proclaimed Trans-Dniester Moldovan
Author: Svetlana Gamova
People's Union, pro-president party of the Trans-Dniester region,
appealed to Vladimir Putin as the future president of Russia.
Putin was assured that if elected the president again, Igor
Smirnov would make sure of Tiraspol's pro-Russian policy. Russian
Presidential Administration Director Sergei Naryshkin once urged
Smirnov to step down but Smirnov would not heed the
recommendation. He said he was going to run for reelection come
December. Sources in Kishinev believe that every candidate for
president of the self-proclaimed Trans-Dniester Moldovan Republic
has supporters in Moscow.
Commenting on Naryshkin's statement, Trans-Dniester Foreign
Minister Vladimir Yastrebchak said, "Naryshkin is free to air his
opinions... As long as he understands - which he does - that this
is up to Trans-Dniester voters themselves. Our voters are wise.
They never vote on orders." Yastrebchak said that Smirnov, 70,
chose to ignore Naryshkin's advice.
That was cheekiness on Smirnov's part indeed, considering
that the Trans-Dniester Moldovan Republic has been living on
Russian money since 2006. Neither can Smirnov himself last long
without Russian guarantees. Kishinev-bases experts claim that
Smirnov has them already, and not necessarily guarantees from the
incumbent president of Russia. Political scientist Arkady
Barbarosh said, "Russia will be electing a new president soon.
Fighting their political wars, various factions in the upper
echelons of state power in Russia find Smirnov quite useful... Had
he been entirely without support in Moscow, Smirnov would have
never behaved in so arrogant a manner. In fact, every candidate
running for president in Tiraspol has supporters in Moscow. Dmitry
Medvedev said that Russia would participate in development of the
new European security framework... but whether or not this policy
is to be continued after the presidential election in Russia
remains to be seen. That's iffy, considering Vladimir Putin's idea
of the Eurasian Front."
Dmitry Diakov, Chairman of the Moldovan Democratic Party and
leader of the Democratic Party faction of the Moldovan parliament,
said, "Naryshkin said what very many in Russia were more than
willing to say... People in the corridors of power replace one
another everywhere including Russia and Moldova, ... but not in
the Trans-Dniester region. Time for Tiraspol to get out of the
trenches because it is like it's still living in 1992. Time for
them to promote new leaders with whom he we could meet and talk.
Had Moscow wanted it, it would have occurred long ago."
Naryshkin said last week that enough was enough and that it
would be wrong for Smirnov to run for president for the fifth time
in a row. He said, "I think it will be a mistake... Smirnov has
done a good deal for the republic these last two decades. It's
time to make room for new political forces and stop using all
resources at his disposal to eliminate competition."
Dmitry Soin, leader of the Breakthrough party and Chairman of
the Supreme Soviet's Commission for International Affairs,
confirmed that this was indeed what Smirnov was doing. Soin added
that most lawmakers in Tiraspol wanted changes. Oleg Gudymo of the
People's Will movement said, "Regrettably, lots of voters choose
to stand by the incumbent president. They fear that with Smirnov
gone, the Trans-Dniester region would be returned to Moldova and
forced to join Romania with it. Most residents of the region
refuse to live in Moldova or Romania. As a matter of fact, this
threat that Moldova might end up absorbed by Romania is what
already caused an armed conflict in the past."
Soin said, "Not a single candidate for president, provided he
comes in first in the presidential race, will surrender the Trans-
Dniester region to Moldova. They all are pro-Russian."
The self-proclaimed Trans-Dniester Moldovan Republic will
elect its president on December 11. There are five candidates
vying for presidency, and chances of three of them are estimated
as "fighting". They are Smirnov himself and two chairmen of the
local legislature - Anatoly Kaminsky (incumbent) and Yevgeny
Shevchuk (former).
[return to Contents]
Forward email
This email was sent to email@example.com by firstname.lastname@example.com |
Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM) | Privacy Policy.
Johnson's Russia List | 6368 Circle Drive | Chincoteague | VA | 23336