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-#225-Johnson's Russia List
Released on 2012-10-10 17:00 GMT
Email-ID | 4902766 |
Date | 2011-12-15 16:52:59 |
From | firstname.lastname@example.com |
To | email@example.com |
List-Name | email@example.com |
Johnson's Russia List
15 December 2011
A World Security Institute Project
JRL homepage: www.cdi.org/russia/johnson
Constant Contact JRL archive:
JRL on Facebook: www.facebook.com/russialist
JRL on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JohnsonRussiaLi
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: Putin rules out new election in marathon show.
2. ITAR-TASS: Election returns reflect real line-up of forces in country - Putin.
3. RIA Novosti: Putin against imposing internet restrictions.
5. www.russiatoday.com: Politically-active youth a good legacy of 'Putin's
regime' - PM.
6. Business New Europe: Ben Aris, Putin launches presidential campaign; promises
CCTV at polling stations.
7. Moscow Times: 50,000-Strong Rally Approved.
8. Kommersant: Oleg Kashin, "I LAUGH AT ALL ATTEMPTS TO DISRUPT ORGANIZATION OF
9. RBC Daily: POLICE TO MAKE CHOICE. Experts say that the Russian police
sympathize with protesters and distrust both the ruling party and opposition
10. Moscow Times: Gryzlov Quits Parliament After 8 Years.
11. Vedomosti: NEITHER GRYZLOV, NOR ZUBKOV. PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION DIRECTOR
12. Moscow Times: New Duma Draws From Politburo and Playboy.
13. Moscow News: Voters unsurprised by election results poll.
14. Moskovsky Komsomolets: WHO WILL ASSIST PROKHOROV? An update on the
forthcoming presidential race.
15. Moskovskiy Komsomolets: Opposition Needs Quick Action on Presidential
Candidate. (Vladislav Inozemtsev)
16. Gazeta.ru: INSOR Chief Igor Yurgens on Protest Movement's Postelection
17. PBS Newshour: In Wake of Disputed Election, Russian Middle Class 'Finding its
Voice.' (with Matthew Murray and Fiona Hill)
18. Moscow Times: Alexander Golts, To Beat, or Not to Beat.
19. RIA Novosti: Marc Bennetts, Analysis: Russian state TV gingerly breaks
silence on dissent.
20. www.opendemocracy.net: 'I am Putin's propaganda.'Is it possible to challenge
censors without losing your livelihood? Polina Bykhovskaya interviews the men and
women who wanted to change the world but ended up in the business of job
preservation (their's and Putin's)
21. Russia Profile: Two Nations, One Vision. The Internet Is Poised to Overtake
Television as the Key Information Supplier.
22. www.carnegieendowment.org: Duma Elections: Expert Analysis. Dmitri Trenin,
Maria Lipman, Alexey Malashenko, Sergei Aleksashenko, Natalia Bubnova, Nikolay
Petrov Compilation of commentaries.
23. Christian Science Monitor: Fred Weir, My teacher, the billionaire? Russians
see a teachable moment. What values should shape the next generation? Russia's
President Medvedev kicked up a storm by suggesting that billionaires should share
the secrets of their success in the classroom.
24. Russia Profile: Until Death Do Them Part. Russia's Demographic Crisis May
Compel Russian Women to Bear Equal Economic Burden with Men.
25. Moscow Times: Commerce Chamber Sees Positive Changes.
26. RIA Novosti: Russia wants better cooperation with U.S. Putin.
27. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: SOUTHERN OPTIMIZATION. Is Iran about to be attacked?
What shall Russia expect and do if it is?
Putin rules out new election in marathon show
By Timothy Heritage and Gleb Bryanski
December 15, 2011
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Vladimir Putin dismissed calls to rerun a parliamentary
election in a marathon phone call-in on Russian television on Thursday and
ignored most of the demands of protesters complaining of electoral fraud and
demanding an end to his 12-year rule.
In a 4-1/2 hour call-in question-and-answer show, the prime minister held out the
prospect of slightly easing his political control but shrugged off the
significance of the biggest opposition protests since he rose to power in 1999
and deflected attention by criticizing the West.
Reaction on the social network Twitter suggested Putin came across as out of
touch and, dressed in a suit and tie at a large desk as he took questions by
phone and from a studio audience, he looked less at ease than in previous years.
"From my point of view, the result of the (parliamentary) election undoubtedly
reflects public opinion in the country," Putin said in the show, which was
broadcast live to the nation.
"As for the fact that the ruling force, United Russia, lost some ground, there is
also nothing unusual about this. Listen, we have gone through a very difficult
period of crisis, and look at what is happening in other countries."
The former KGB spy tried to present himself as a reasonable, even-handed national
leader during the call-in, with the aim of raising his popularity from the low
ebb it has been at since he announced plans on September 24 to reclaim the
presidency next year.
The organizers of rallies which brought tens of thousands of people onto the
streets on Saturday had hoped for a response to their calls for the December 4
poll to be rerun, the election commission head dismissed, opposition parties
registered and "political prisoners" freed.
Putin hinted at liberalizing the political system by letting regional governors
be popularly elected -- though only after approval by the president -- and
suggested legislation might be changed to allow small opposition parties to be
"We can move in this direction," he said in response to a question about a
liberal opposition party whose leaders include former Prime Minister Mikhail
Kasyanov but was barred from contesting the parliamentary the election.
But he gave no indication he would respond to any of their other main demands and
appears to be intent on riding out the protests and hoping they fade, even though
another day of protest is planned by the opposition for on December 24.
Other apparent Kremlin moves to ease tension since the protests swelled on
Saturday include the announcement by a United Russia leader that he will not take
up his seat in parliament and allowing billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov to run for
president, a move that might appease some protesters.
Many of the protesters are young professionals in big cities who have answered
online calls to come to rallies and want the political system opened up to
include a liberal opposition reflecting their views.
Putin sought to appear democratic and unconcerned about the protests by saying
they were "absolutely normal as long as everyone acts within the framework of the
"I saw on people on the TV screens ... mostly young people, active and with
positions that they expressed clearly," Putin said. "This makes me happy, and if
that is the result of the Putin regime, that's good -- there's nothing bad about
But at another point, he turned to the journalist hosting the call-in and said:
"I've had enough of these questions about the elections."
Putin said that at first he thought that the white ribbons which were worn by the
protesters a sign of dissent were a sign of an anti-AIDS campaign, and he had
mistaken them for condoms.
He also alleged students were paid to go to the opposition demonstrations,
adding: "They will at least make some money."
The protest organizers had already accused Putin this week of ignoring their
demands and his comments went down badly among many people on Twitter.
"That's it. It's the end. Putin is completely out of touch. And this is becoming
more obvious to everyone. You had to think hard to insult the people like this,"
wrote one person who identified himself as Oleg Kozyrev.
Russia-based economists said Putin was clearly having to work harder than in
previous years to maintain his credibility but doubted he had won any new support
in his performance.
"He's not winning any fresh votes. He didn't say anything to win the votes of the
other crowd (of opponents) - he could have used this big event to push forward
his rating," said Alexey Bachurin, of Renaissance Capital investment bank.
Putin, 59, has used the annual call-in to burnish his image as a strong leader
with a detailed knowledge of the country and an interest in all its people.
Questions have usually focused on social issues such as healthcare, pensions and
He criticized the West, and particularly former Cold War enemy the United States,
on at least two occasions - a tactic often used to shift blame or divert
attention from problems.
"The United States does not need allies, it needs vassals," he said.
He defended his economic record, saying there had been some "remarkable and
meaningful" achievements such as reducing poverty.
He hinted that former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, who is held in high regard
by foreign investors and many young professionals, could return to government
after falling out with the Kremlin in September.
"Such people were needed and will be needed in past and future governments," he
But Putin was under much more pressure at this year's call-in following the large
protests over the election, which international monitors said was slanted to
favour United Russia, although it won only a slim majority in the lower house.
Many protesters have also called for an end to Putin's rule and are wary of his
plans to return to the presidency, a post he held from 2000 until 2008, fearing
it would mean a new era of political and economic stagnation.
Many Russians saw the announcement on September 24 that he planned to swap jobs
with President Dmitry Medvedev as a signal that everything had been cooked up
between them with no respect for democracy.
Putin, who built up a rugged image with stunts such as riding a horse
bare-chested, is still expected to win the presidential election next year but he
now faces much more resistance than expected.
[return to Contents]
December 15, 2011
Election returns reflect real line-up of forces in country - Putin
By Itar-Tass World Service writer Lyudmila Alexandrova
Russia's prime minister and one of the presidential candidates, Vladimir Putin,
on Thursday started his call-in marathon on television with an answer to the
"inconvenient" questions about the recent demonstrations of protest against
election abuses and about the relationship of the authorities and society as a
whole. In general, this question-and-answer session, held for the tenth time,
differed from the previous ones with a considerable number of unpleasant
questions, to which, incidentally, Putin proved obviously well-prepared.
The results of the elections, according to Putin, certainly reflected the real
balance of forces in the country, and protests were a normal phenomenon, if they
remained within the legal framework. "The fact that people express their point of
view is an absolutely normal thing, as long as they are within the law," Putin
said, adding that he was happy, when he saw young people who had their own
position and were able to articulate it. "I'm glad, if this is a result of the
Putin regime."
"As for the fact the Opposition is unhappy (about election results) - there is
nothing new about that," said the prime minister. "It has always been that way
and it will always be," he said. "The opposition is struggling for power and
seeking every opportunity to get closer to the current authorities, to blame, and
to point to its mistakes - this is normal," said Putin. The Opposition will
always claim that the elections were unfair, but the form in which this message
is expressed is a question of political culture."
Putin made a number of caustic comments on the participants in demonstrations.
About the white ribbons that have become a symbol of protest, Putin said that
they looked like a symbol of the fight against AIDS: "They were hanging like some
contraceptives." He also talked about the color revolutions. It's all pretty
clear about them, he said. "It's a well-practiced scheme of decentralization of
society, which emerged all by itself". And this, he said, is unacceptable.
Putin believes that "the attacks on the elections are of secondary importance."
"The main goal is the election of the president," he said. In order to avoid
speculations about what sort of election it would be, honest or dishonest, he
suggested planting web cameras at all polling stations in the country that would
be transmitting the signal through the Internet live. This would let the whole
country see what is happening at each ballot box and stop any talk of fraud.
Responding to a question about his attitude to the publication of photos by
Kommersant-Vlast magazine of a ballot paper with an obscene inscription addressed
to him, which cost the editor-in-chief his career, Putin assured that the
inscription on the ballot paper cast at a polling station in London "very amused
and even pleased" him. Putin recalled that when the struggle against terrorists
in the North Caucasus was underway, he saw a lot of cartoons of himself and heard
nasty things addressed to him, but he was convinced then and remained convinced
now about the correctness of his policy. "We know who is now in London: they want
to return, but while I'm sitting here, they cannot do that. I'm not offended by
them, and I am even grateful they have heeded the call and came to vote in the
elections," Putin laughed.
He urged Russians to take a responsible attitude to grass-roots elections to
ensure there be no quasi-oligarchs or their representatives in the
municipalities. In response to a remark by lawyer Anatoly Kucherena about the
lack of a dialogue between the local authorities and citizens Putin recalled his
meeting with Alexander Solzhenitsyn. He "paid much attention to the municipal
level of government and he was absolutely right," Putin said, adding that it was
"the most important level of government that affects the daily lives of people."
The prime minister recalled that now the issue was being addressed of
redistribution of powers and funding between the center and regions. The local
authorities "should be self-sufficient for the solution of their tasks, but even
in that case they should not be soulless," Putin said.
The prime minster spoke about the achievements made since 2000. In general,
Russia has as "a healthy economy," Putin said. A key indicator of economic health
is the level of unemployment, which has fallen below pre-crisis levels. The same
applies to debts: Russia's foreign debt is now 2.5% - "almost nothing".
Speaking about further problems, Putin pointed to the need for strengthening the
political system - it should be self-sufficient and "resistible to any impostors
from the outside." It is also necessary to expand the credibility of the
authorities, to develop economy, promote innovation, and, of course, develop the
social sphere.
Putin considers it possible to restore the direct elections of governors and
members of the Federation Council, but only on the condition the "presidential
filter" stays in place. The prime minister suggested a compromise: the party that
has won the regional elections would propose its gubernatorial candidates to the
president, who would send them through his "presidential filter" and return to
the region, where the residents would select one of the remaining candidates.
Putin said the same approach might be made to the formation of the Federation
He sees his main goal in the modernization of the country and society to bring it
to a qualitatively new level of development. "This will be my most important
task, if the citizens entrust me with this job," said Putin.
Putin disagreed with those who think that the main problems of the state have
been addressed already. "Should you let things go loose just a little bit, and
then many will understand what sort of difficulties there exist today, when they
will have not to go to some square to demonstrate, but to step into the line of
fire to fight the terrorists," he said. According to the prime minister, the risk
of economic shocks, in particular, those related to unemployment growth and
inflation remained. "Then we shall have to discuss not the ways of increasing
pensions, but of raising the retirement age," he said.
Responding to a question about whether he would return to his team the former
finance minister, Alexei Kudrin, who was sacked by President Dmitry Medvedev,
Putin called him a friend and said that he had never left his team. "I am proud
that I had such a man working in my government." He was twice recognized "the
best economist in the world," Putin said. "Yes, we did have some disagreements,
but, in general, fundamentally, people like Kudrin think globally, strategically,
and look into the future. Such people are certainly needed in the current
government, and will be needed in the future."
Hostile forces in the West, comparing Putin to Gaddafi, wish to oust Russia from
the international scene, Putin said, commenting on U.S. Senator John McCain's
recent statement. "I've heard these comments. Actually, he said that not about
me. This was said with regard to Russia some would like to push Russia to the
sidelines, where it would not interfere with their domination of the globe," he
"They are still afraid of our nuclear potential, Russia is an annoyance. In
addition, we conduct an independent foreign policy. This, of course, is a
hindrance to some," Putin added, stressing that Russia in the West had "more
friends than enemies."
The head of government recalled some details of the U.S. senator's biography.
"Mr. McCain, as is known, was taken prisoner in Vietnam. And he spent there
several years in jail, not just in jail, but in a pit. This can send anyone out
of mind - so there is nothing special about this," Putin said.
[return to Contents]
Putin against imposing internet restrictions
MOSCOW, December 15 (RIA Novosti)-Restriction of online freedoms is
technologically complicated, politically wrong and is not needed in Russia, Prime
Minister Vladimir Putin said on Thursday.
The statement comes after a number of senior Russian officials spoke in favor of
restrictions on the internet. The web became a vital tool for organizing protests
in Russia, including the December 10 rally, the largest anti-government protests
in Russia for almost two decades.
"I think internet restrictions are impossible. They are technologically
complicated and politically wrong," Putin said during his live Q&A session.
He said that there was only one way to respond to online criticism: "to offer
other variants, approaches and solutions to those problems at the same web
resource, but do it with more creativity and interest and attract a greater
number of supporters."
However, Putin said that the use of the internet with illegal intentions should
be tracked by law-enforcers.
"Without imposing restrictions, they should be aware of what's going on and do
what should be done," the Russian premier said.
On December 8, the head of the Interior Ministry's Bureau for Special Technical
Services, Alexei Moshkov, proposed obliging internet users to identify themselves
using their real names and publish their actual street addresses on their online
Moshkov's interview published amid growing protests over the results of the
December 4 parliamentary elections sparked a wave of criticism from Russian
internet users who accused the Russian authorities of attempting to restrict
internet freedom. Later in the day, Russian Interior Minister Rashid Nurgaliyev
dismissed the proposal as "nonsense."
About a week later, Russia's Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev said Russia
should adopt a Chinese-style government regulation of the internet, which, among
other things, blocks "politically sensitive" websites.
[return to Contents]
December 15, 2011
Politically-active youth a good legacy of 'Putin's regime' - PM
Commenting on recent election protests, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has
said that if, as a result of "Putin's regime", young people have become more
active in voicing their position, that is a good thing.
Putin said that it is "absolutely normal" that people express their opinion about
processes developing in the country in its economy, politics and social life. He
stressed, though, that meetings and rallies should be held in accordance with the
law and expressed hope that it would happen in exactly that way.
The premier is holding his annual live Q&A session with Russian citizens, which
is broadcast by major federal TV channels and radio stations. The special program
is called "Talk with Vladimir Putin: Continued".
The very first question he was asked referred to the situation around the
December 4 parliamentary poll, which brought victory to the Putin-led United
Russia party. The vote was followed by a wave of protests throughout the country
against the vote result and alleged polling violations.
Putin noted that mainly active youngsters who are capable of voicing their stance
clearly participated in the rallies.
"I am glad about that. And if that is the result of 'Putin's regime, it's good, I
don't see anything outrageous about that," he said.
Webcams to monitor fair elections
Speaking about the results of the State Duma elections, the PM said in his
opinion they "reflect the real distribution of political forces in the country."
The fact United Russia got fewer votes in these elections than in 2007 is
understandable, since the country has gone though "a very difficult period" of
the world economic crisis, which affected many citizens. Therefore it is now
easier for the opposition to "recruit" new supporters than it was before.
"But still, United Russia retained its leading position and it's a very good
result," Putin said.
He stressed that the opposition "is always" unhappy with election results and
that is also absolutely normal.
In order to avoid the very possibility of any election fraud, the prime minister
suggested installing webcams that would work round-the-clock in all the voting
stations in the country.
"We also need to make sure that all political forces which got into parliament
are represented at election commissions in accordance with the law," he added.
The PM called on citizens not to ignore the upcoming presidential poll in 2012.
He said they should not follow the pattern of "yes, we would have voted for him,
but they will still do something there, and I need to go urgently to get
potatoes, to go to the country house."
"No one but you will do anything," he underlined. "Only you will decide who will
do foreign policy and represent our country on the international arena, who will
ensure internal and external security, and deal with social issues, who will
develop the economy," he said.
Putin's presidential agenda
Vladimir Putin who is running for the presidency in March next year was asked
what his mission would be if he returns to the Kremlin.
He said that a key goal would become the greater stability of the Russian
political system and its resistance to external impacts.
"We must broaden democracy so that people stay in touch with authorities and
trust them more," Putin said.
The second task would be the modernization of the economy. Putin pointed out that
the idea of "innovation" should nest in the brain of every Russian citizen and be
part of general policy.
He also stressed that the social sphere should be developed "so that no one feels
abandoned by the state."
Putin assured that if citizens entrust him at the presidential elections, he will
be carrying out that mission with pleasure and with the same energy as before.
The premier noted that lately the word "stability" has acquired a certain
negative connotation.
"Stability does not mean stagnation, it means sustainable development. This is
how I understand stability," Putin said. He stressed that the achievements of
previous years must be retained in the future.
'Color revolutions a tool to destabilize situation from abroad'
Editor-in-Chief of Echo of Moscow radio station Aleksey Venediktov asked Vladimir
Putin what he would reply, not to the opposition, but to ordinary citizens who
took to streets for the first time on December 10, and who believe that their
votes were "stolen".
"I would repeat that if this is the result of the 'Putin regime', I can only say
that I am satisfied with this result," the PM responded.
As for alleged falsifications during the parliamentary election, Putin said that
on the demand of the opposition some votes have been recounted. He noted, though,
that after the final results have been counted, all such instances will be
considered in courts.
"I count on the courts to do so objectively," he observed.
The prime minister reiterated that he has nothing against criticism. When asked
if the recent protests were a sign of a coming "color revolution", Putin said
"Lawful protests yes, criticism of the authorities yes. But it's unacceptable
to let us draw into destabilization processes managed from abroad."
He went on to say that during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, some Russian
opposition members were official counselors of the then-President Viktor
Yushchenko and are currently "transferring this practice to Russian soil."
'Kudrin never left my team'
Vladimir Putin also commented on the dismissal of former finance minister Aleksey
Kudrin earlier this year. When asked whether he will include Kudrin in the
government if he becomes president, he said, "Aleksey Leonidovich Kudrin never
left my team. He is my long-standing friend."
"Such people as Kudrin are always needed, both in the actual and future
government. We'll find a place for him," he added.
The premier admitted that they are divided on some issues, but these are not
"principal differences."
Obscene criticism is nothing new
When a presenter read the prime minister a question submitted through the
internet asking what his attitude to the voting ballot with an obscene address on
it was (the story was reported in this week's edition of the Kommersant Vlast
magazine), Putin said that such an attitude was nothing new.
"When there was a war in the Northern Caucasus I saw a lot of cartoons about
myself and heard lots of things," Putin said, adding that Western journalists
were especially active in spreading this sort of information. "I am sure that I
was right back then and I am sure I am still right."
As for this particular phrase, Putin noted that it was important where it was
made it was made in London, where Russian citizens were taking part in the vote
at the embassy. "And we all know who of Russians reside in London and for what
reason," Putin said, hinting at the fact that there is no extradition treaty
between the UK and Russia, and a lot of people who face criminal investigation in
Russia choose the UK as their country of residence.
Above all, Putin said that he had personally called upon Russian citizens to come
and vote in the last elections. "And that was what they did, and for this I have
already thanked them," Putin said, to cheers from the audience.
'McCain wants Gaddafi fate not for me, but for Russia'
Another question dealt with a recent Twitter message by US Republican senator
John McCain who warned Putin of the fate of Muammar Gaddafi.
"This is the fate [McCain] wants for Russia, not for me," the prime minister
He also criticized the violent scenes of the killing of the Libyan leader shown
on TV, stressing that he had been executed without trial. Putin added that
military rhetoric of Senator McCain is probably linked to his past, namely with
the fact that he fought in Vietnam, and sees force as the only efficient means of
international politics.
"He was not only taken hostage, he spent significant time in a pit in the ground
anyone would go crazy in such circumstances," Putin said.
"Some want to put Russia aside, so that it does not obstruct them from ruling in
the world," he added. "We have our own opinion, we are leading independent
international policies, this, of course impedes someone."
Party performance is not a criteria of governors' success
Putin said that the government's assessment of governors' work was not based
primarily on the performance of United Russia party at the elections in regions,
but sometimes a lack of popular support is a sign for governors that it is time
to resign.
"The government has elaborated the list of criteria for the assessment of
governors' efficiency and there is no connection with United Russia's results in
regional elections," the PM said.
However, in some regions the governors were directly participating in elections
and failed to achieve positive results and "this testifies to the level of
support, or lack of support, from the citizens who live in one territory or
another. And in some cases if I were in the governors' place I would consider
submitting my resignation," Putin said.
Addressing whether or not the regions that did not support United Russia at the
elections will be excluded from programs of social support, Putin said such
rumors were total rubbish. "Such things never happen in any country and it will
not happen in Russia," Putin said.
'I won't wish success to Prokhorov'
The issue of the forthcoming presidential election could not be avoided during
the Q&A session.
Vladimir Putin was asked what he thinks about billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov's
decision to join the presidential race.
"I can't say that I wish him success as I'm also running, but I'm sure that he
will be a worthy and strong rival," the prime minister responded.
As a citizen of Russia "who has reached a certain age," the businessman has every
right to do so Putin added. He also reminded of Prokhorov's failed attempt at
leading the Right Cause party.
"Mikhail Dmitrievich [Prokhorov] is a persistent person, he never gives up. As I
see it, he decided to use a new platform in order to promote the ideas which he
believes are right for the country. What he is doing is within the law and the
constitution," Vladimir Putin noted.
'Absence of opposition literary license'
He then commented on the statement that there is no opposition in Russia.
"Judging by what I've seen in recent days on TV, on the internet, on the radio
and even here in the studio, in the course of this Q&A session...the claim that
we don't have opposition and that it does not have the opportunity to speak out
is something of a literary license," Putin said, adding that the country does
need to move toward further liberalization.
"We can't do only one thing in this country. We can't create regional parties,
especially in ethnic republics, where this can result in nationalism and
separatism," he stressed.
He also said that it is necessary to treat all citizens with respect, "even those
who do not accept the authorities in principle."
"But there are people who hold Russian passports but act in the interests of the
foreign state and on foreign funds. We will try to establish contact with them as
well," Putin went on to say. "Although sometimes this is useless and impossible."
However, he noted that if he becomes president, he is going to work with everyone
without exception.
Direct election of governors possible, after presidential 'filter'
Answering a question as to whether the return to direct elections of regional
governors was possible, Vladimir Putin noted that he had personally invented the
current system and had valid reasons for doing so.
He recalled that this system was introduced in the middle of last decade. Back
then, the situation in the country was unstable, military operations were held in
the North Caucasus where semi-criminal elites were acting.Putin said that at that
time governors who were elected by secret ballot were often basing their power
on criminal structures and separatist movements.
However, now it may be time to consider changes, although they should be
introduced gradually.
"We must keep the presidential filter that would block the forces that promote
separatism or, God forbid, a split from the Russian Federation," he said.
A system could be introduced in which all parties elected to regional parliaments
submit their candidates for gubernatorial posts to the president. After that,
those whose candidacy is approved by the country's leader could compete for the
job in regional elections.
Currently the party that wins elections proposes candidates for the posts of
governors to the president, who makes the choice. It is then submitted to
regional parliaments for approval.
Federal support to North Caucasus republics to continue
When a question arrived by phone asking Putin to detail his attitude towards the
slogan "it is enough to feed the Caucasus" a protest against allegedly excessive
state support to North Caucasus regions Putin said that such an attitude is a
mistake and the support will continue.
Putin said that such sentiments are caused by the fact that more and more people
from the North Caucasus region are arriving in big Russian cities and cannot
adjust to city life and new realities. Thus, to counter the slogan the
authorities must change life in the Northern Caucasus in such way that people
choose not to leave their home places.
"We need to develop the production, economy, social sphere so that no one wants
to get away from there. For this, we must invest money there. This does not mean
that we must throw in money without thinking," Putin said.
The PM added that the allegations about the high corruption level in the Northern
Caucasus were groundless. "I know there are many questions to [leader of the
Chechen Republic] Ramzan Kadyrov, but look at how he has restored the city of
Grozny. This is unprecedented. And I can say that Chechnya has the minimum level
of corruption component," Putin said.
The PM added that improving life in the North Caucasus region will eventually
reduce the number of those who join the illegal armed formations, which is a good
We should have saved the USSR
When a listener asked Putin his possible behavior would have been if he was in
power during the breakup of the Soviet Union, the prime minister stressed that
there cannot be a subjunctive mode in history, but in such a situation he would
persistently and fearlessly fight for the country's integrity.
"What would I do? We should have started the economic changes and reforms in the
Soviet Union in time, and strengthened them with democratic changes in the
country. We should have been fighting for the territorial integrity of the state
persistently and without fear," Putin said.
Putin added that in late '90s the situation was much more dramatic than before
the breakup of the Soviet Union. "The economy collapsed as a result of the 1998
crisis, the social sphere was on the zero level and the army ceased to exist. And
we faced an aggression from the international terrorism, a civil war started. And
the remaining part of Russia was on the brink of collapse. And you know what
particular steps I took to preserve the territorial integrity of the Russian
Federation," Putin said.
Medvedev best candidate for premiership
Finally, Vladimir Putin reiterated that, in the event of his victory in the
presidential election, Dmitry Medvedev will head the cabinet.
"United Russia, led by Medvedev, received the majority in the State Duma. This
allows the government to work steadily. It is an unconditional victory," Putin
Vladimir Putin answered questions both from guests in the studio and citizens
participating in TV link-ups with Russian cities. Questions were also submitted
by phone, text message and online. The most interesting and relevant questions
received by the call center were forwarded to Putin during the live broadcast.
Some famous persons were in the studio to take part in the "Talk with Vladimir
Putin". A number of celebrities also accepted the invitation to work in the call
center together with regular phone operators.
It was the 10th live Q&A session for Vladimir Putin. The program lasted for
four-and-a-half hours, breaking last year's record of 4 hours and 26 minutes. The
prime minister responded to 88 questions in total. Around 1.8 million questions
were submitted during the broadcast.
[return to Contents]
Business New Europe
December 15, 2011
Putin launches presidential campaign; promises CCTV at polling stations
By Ben Aris
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin launched his presidential campaign December
15 during his annual "meet the people" teleconference, which included several
questions from the audience about the disputed parliamentary elections on
December 4.
In what appeared to be a swipe at oligarch Mikhail Prokhorov, who announced his
candidacy on December 12, Putin said: "People shouldn't elect people simply for
some handout from the oligarchs or their representatives. They need to elect
people that they respect, who have done something for the country."
Clearly, Putin is going to run on his achievements and he has many to boast of,
which he ticked off. Echoing the main points of bne's "Despair Index", Putin
pointed out that poverty has fallen from 29% of the population when he came to
power down to a post-soviet record of 12% (currently lower than the level in most
countries of the West). Unemployment has also fallen to 6%, lower than its
pre-crisis level, while inflation is also at a record low of about 6-7%. "For
Russia this is a very good result. In the UK inflation is 5%. Russia's inflation
is approaching the levels of the European Union," he said, adding that debt has
fallen from 120% of GDP to 2.5% of GDP. "This is a solid basis for a sound
economy and the foundation of a social system."
He also directly addressed the fears of the population and the demands of the
recent protestors. "We need to expand our democratic system so that the people
feel in closer contact with the authorities at a regional and federal level; we
need to build up more trust [between the people and the government]," said Putin.
But he couldn't help having a dig at the West after the US admitted to funding
opposition groups.
However, in a concrete move to improve the transparency and accountability of
elections, Putin said that CCTV cameras would be installed at every polling
station so "the whole country can see what is happening at every ballot box."
The idea of the cameras is a piece of reassuring political theatre, which will
nevertheless improve transparency a bit. However, the allegations of ballot
stuffing by independent observers claim that sealed ballot boxes arrived at
polling stations already containing completed ballots.
The cameras may help placate some of the anger and foster some of that feeling of
"trust" that Putin wants, but they won't solve the problem of electoral
manipulation. What is needed is a comprehensive system of checks and independent
observers to validate the count where all parties are represented in overseeing
the ballot boxes, not just state bureaucrats. That is the only way to make the
vote believable. If Putin was really serious about ensuring the veracity of the
vote, he could have, for example, invited the OSCE to send in an army of election
monitors. Still it was a nice touch.
[return to Contents]
Moscow Times
December 15, 2011
50,000-Strong Rally Approved
By Rina Soloveitchik
Dashing fears that a second major rally over the State Duma elections would be
banned, City Hall on Wednesday authorized a protest for Dec. 24 on Prospekt
Akademika Sakharova, a Duma deputy said Wednesday.
A total of 50,000 demonstrators will be allowed to gather from 2 to 6 p.m. in the
area near the Krasniye Vorota metro station, the deputy, Ilya Ponomarev of A Just
Russia, said on Twitter.
The decision, however, remains verbal and has not been put into writing, said
Solidarity activist Nadezhda Mityushkina, who attended a City Hall meeting where
the rally was approved, Interfax reported.
Organizers were initially worried that the rally might not go forward after
finding out that the nationalist group Slavic Union had petitioned City Hall to
hold events in all three venues where the opposition had wanted to protest:
Prospekt Akademika Sakharova, Manezh Square and Vasilyevsky Spusk, Gazeta.ru
The opposition filed their application on Monday, Lenta.ru reported. It was
unclear when the nationalists had filed.
By Wednesday evening, more than 18,000 people had signed up on Facebook to attend
the opposition rally.
Opposition leader Vladimir Ryzhkov wrote on his Facebook page that the aim was to
attract at least 300,000 people.
"When the government wants to prohibit a demonstration, they find a way. But
given that tens of thousands have agreed to come, they probably did not find it
profitable to forbid the rally," opposition activist Sergei Davidis, who
participated in the City Hall talks, told The Moscow Times.
Meanwhile, Time magazine announced Wednesday that it had selected "The Protester"
as its person of the year. In explaining its decision, the magazine mentioned
dissent across the Middle East that has spread to the European Union, the United
States and Russia and is influencing global policies.
"This title definitely also applies to Russia, and everyone who saw what happened
on Dec. 10 would agree," said leading activist Yevgenia Chirikova, referring to
last Saturday's rally of tens of thousands of people.
"I am proud to say that our protest is the most cultured and civilized of all the
protests," she said. "It's sad that the deafness of the officials have blocked
our protests so far, but the protests have united the people, which is already an
Separately, Russian envoy Konstantin Dolgov has assailed U.S. and European
authorities for using "brutal" force against protesters from the "Occupy Wall
Street" movement.
U.S. and European "citizens are practicing their fundamental democratic rights to
freedom of expression, assembly and association," Dolgov said in a Foreign
Ministry statement.
[return to Contents]
December 15, 2011
Author: Oleg Kashin
Question: Journalist Leonid Parfenov and you refused to
attend the next meeting of the rally steering committee. The
overall impression is that you grew disappointed with this form of
protest. Did you?
Boris Akunin: As for the meeting, we want the steering
committee to include fewer politicians. Let there be new people
there, preferably young people. That was why Parfenov and yours
truly decided to step down and offer our seats to others. Nobody
grew disappointed with anything. And yet, I was told afterwards
that it looked like we were jumping ship. Perhaps it did but
jumping ship is not what we are after. All we want are young
people on the steering committee. We believe that it is wrong for
the steering committee to include fifty-year olds like us.
Question: In other words, your attitude towards protests in
general and the December 24 rally specifically remained unchanged?
Boris Akunin: Of course it did. I'm stone-cold confident that
the protest rally on December 24 is an event of unprecedented
importance. Whoever misses the rally... they will lose the moral
right from then on to complain that they are treated as if they
and their opinion are of no importance. In fact, if the protesters
turn out to be few after all, then it will mean that we do not
deserve any better treatment at all.
Question: You said at the previous meeting of the steering
committee that protests ought to be restricted to Moscow alone.
Why is that? Do you think that it is possible to orchestrate
another counting of votes in Moscow?
Boris Akunin: I think that we stand a chance to have our
demands met in Moscow at this point. If the regions decide to join
protests, fine, we will only welcome it. The election in Moscow is
the minimum price the powers-that-be may pay to placate general
public. For the time being, at least. I do not know what general
public will think about the presidential election otherwise. I
guess we all know who public indignation might be focused on in
this case. So that this candidate won't be able to lay all the
blame at the door of the so called party of thieves.
Question: Do you think that anything changed in Russian
politics on December 10?
Boris Akunin: Not in politics, not yet. Something changed
within society. Putin's life dictatorship is what I was afraid of
until recently. I do not think that it will happen now. Society
does not want it, and society won't put up with it.
Question: Why do you think the authorities permitted the
December 10 rally and even had TV channels covering it?
Boris Akunin: Because there must be a faction within the
powers-that-be that has retained the instinct of self-
preservation. I also think that a lot depends now on the
journalists who haven't yet forgotten what it is that they are
supposed to be doing.
Question: Could you please outline the worst and the best
post-protest scenarios?
Boris Akunin: Hard-liners taking over in the Kremlin will be
the worst turn of events of course. All other scenarios, I guess I
can live with them.
Question: But why did the authorities decide to move the
protests from Bolotnaya Square to Sakharov Prospekt?
Boris Akunin: I suspect that the powers-that-be are afraid to
let protesters meet so near the Kremlin. As for all the rest, I
laugh at all attempts to disrupt organization of the rally. The
more the authorities try to do so, the more people are bound to
turn up.
[return to Contents]
RBC Daily
December 15, 2011
Experts say that the Russian police sympathize with protesters and distrust both
the ruling party and opposition leaders
Author: Ivan Petrov
Addressing protesters in Bolotnaya Square last Saturday, writer
Dmitry Bykov thanked the Moscow police force for being with the
people i.e. with protesters. The celebrity must have drawn this
conclusion from the unusually mild and non-aggressive behavior of
the law enforcement agencies just milling around and not even
trying to rough up anybody. As a matter of fact, the police were
but following orders in this particular case. But what is their
actual attitude?
A poll was conducted by the police trade union on the eve of
the parliamentary election. As it turned out, 37.2% policemen
intended to cast their votes for the CPRF, 22% for the LDPR, 5.8%
for Fair Russia, 3.8% for Yabloko, and as many for United Russia.
Twenty-two percent flatly refused to participate in the election.
"Sure, we know what attitudes prevail among the Moscow
police. They sympathize with the opposition," said a senior
functionary of the Moscow Police Force. "That's on account of
availability of liberal media, high level of education, and some
other factors. On the average, the Moscow police are better
knowledgeable about politics than their colleagues from the
Political scientist Stanislav Belkovsky said, "I regularly
talk to police officers... colonels and lieutenant colonels
mostly. They sympathize with protesters. I do not think that the
authorities can rely on their loyalty too much." Belkovsky
reckoned that the police in Russian regions were of the same frame
of mind.
Lawyer Igor Kustov disagreed with this assumption and pointed
out that the powers-that-be could always rely on special forces
from Yaroslavl, Tver, Ryazan, Vladimir, and so on. "These guys ask
no questions even now. They were promised a pay-rise as of January
so that their salaries will be quite substantial by regional
standards. They are human enough to want to do everything not to
lose their new pay."
"These so called police reforms were so circumspect and
inconclusive that the renaming was essentially all they boiled
down to. The renaming and a higher pay is all there is to show for
the so called reforms, and a higher pay is all the police really
wanted," said Aleksei Mukhin of the Political Information Center.
"What police officers remained on the force are not going to
jeopardize their position now that the authorities seem to care
for them. Whatever the political developments, the powers-that-be
can count on the police."
Moscow Police Trade Union Chairman Mikhail Pashkin said that
few police officers really trusted the ruling party, much less
supported it. "Senior officers brainwash the rank-and-file before
every rally. They rave about protesters being on the payroll of
Western powers and so on, but practically nobody trusts these
According to the opinion poll conducted on the web site of
the Moscow police, the siloviki do sympathize with whoever has
been protesting against the rigged election. The answer "The
people fed up with the lying authorities ought to be assisted" was
chosen by 87.3% voters and "Those on the payroll of Western secret
services ought to be dealt with roughly" by 7.6%. Just over 5%
respondents did not know what answer to choose.
Pashkin said, "What counts I think is that nobody on the
force trusts the so called opposition leaders - all these
Nemtsovs, Limonovs, Navalnys, and so on. Very many say that they
would have followed someone like Vladimir Lenin."
Pashkin said that if the police were ordered to open up on
protesters, they would refuse to follow the order and retire. "On
the other hand, it only applies to professional officers of law
enforcement agencies. We all know that there are the Internal
Troops as well... And these guys will carry out every order," said
[return to Contents]
Moscow Times
December 15, 2011
Gryzlov Quits Parliament After 8 Years
By Nikolaus von Twickel
State Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov said Wednesday that he would not take up his
seat, ending eight years at the helm of the lower house of parliament.
"I won't enter the Duma this time because I think it is not right to serve more
than two consecutive terms as speaker of the house," Gryzlov said in a statement
posted on his United Russia's web site.
He added that he would not resign from his post as head of United Russia's
supreme council.
Although not entirely unexpected, the resignation sent speculation swirling that
the Kremlin was responding to protests that shook the country after accusations
of large-scale fraud in the Dec. 4 Duma elections.
United Russia made its worst-ever showing in the vote, winning 238 of the 450
seats in parliament, where it previously had a comfortable two-thirds majority.
Although soft-spoken and gentlemanly, Gryzlov was widely seen by the
non-parliamentary opposition as a stooge who ran parliament according to the
Kremlin's commands.
It was unclear Wednesday who would replace him. Kremlin chief of staff Sergei
Naryshkin and Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Zhukov, who both ran on United
Russia's ticket, are considered front-runners for the job.
President Dmitry Medvedev is also eligible for the post after running as the sole
candidate on United Russia's federal list.
First Deputy Prime Minister Viktor Zubkov, who was earlier tipped as a candidate,
said he would continue his work in the government and would not take his Duma
seat, Interfax reported.
Senior party official Andrei Vorobyov told Interfax that a decision on a
successor would be made at a United Russia presidium session on Saturday.
Political observers said the Kremlin would have to pick someone more capable to
find a common language with a more powerful Duma opposition.
"He is inappropriate in this situation after the elections," independent
political analyst Alexander Kynev said about Gryzlov.
He added that Gryzlov was widely unpopular both inside and outside parliament.
"They need someone who can make compromises," he said.
The Duma speaker wields considerable political power because he can freely decide
how much time is allocated for debates and how it is divided between
parliamentary factions.
"Parliamentarism is weaker, therefore the head of parliament has a greater role,"
Kynev said.
Gryzlov, a native of St. Petersburg like Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and
President Dmitry Medvedev, moved to Moscow in 1999 to head the pro-Putin Unity
party's Duma faction. He later served two years and nine months as interior
minister before returning to parliament, heading the faction of the newly created
United Russia party. He was elected speaker after the 2003 Duma elections and
re-elected in 2007.
A fervent supporter of Putin, Gryzlov was widely ridiculed for having said that
parliament was not a place for discussion, although he never confirmed this quote
and national media suggested that this was a misinterpretation comments made in
December 2003, when he rejected calls for interparty talks by saying the Duma was
"no place for political battles."
In 2009, he became the hero of a comic strip, published online at Gryzlovman.ru,
depicting him as a superhero fighting monsters and saving lives.
Stanislav Belkovsky, an independent analyst and former Kremlin insider, said that
under Gryzlov the Duma had deteriorated into an appendix of the presidential
administration. "They have even started accepting that laws are not written by
them anymore but rather by Kremlin officials," he said of the lawmakers.
But Andrei Klimov, a United Russia deputy who was re-elected to the Duma, said
much of the criticism directed against Gryzlov was unfair. "He is a pedantic man
who always saw that regulations were observed 100 percent," he said by telephone.
Klimov also praised Gryzlov for giving the opposition a fair amount of talk time
and always reading long draft bills "right through to the end."
But opposition leaders were unimpressed by his removal, arguing that Gryzlov
never was an independent political figure. "They will just replace one person who
executes Putin's will with another," Yabloko chairman Sergei Mitrokhin told
[return to Contents]
December 15, 2011
Author: Lilia Biryukova, Natalia Kostenko, Anastasia Kornya, Yevgenia Pismennaya
[Boris Gryzlov is leaving the Duma he chaired these last eight years.]
Boris Gryzlov, Duma Chairman and leader of the United Russia
faction these last two terms, decided to quit the lower house of
the parliament. Gryzlov said that he was resigning the parliament
to concentrate on party affairs in the capacity of chairman of
United Russia Supreme Council but added that he would accept
whatever position the president saw fit to offer him. Sources
within the ruling party speculated only recently that Gryzlov
might be made the presidential plenipotentiary representative in
the Trans-Volga Federal Region.
Sources within the Kremlin, government, and Duma call
Presidential Administration Director Sergei Naryshkin a prime
candidate for the vacant seat of Duma chairman.
Maxim Rokhmistrov of the LDPR faction said, "Gryzlov will
certainly be remembered for his famous axiom "The parliament is no
place for debates." I guess he will never live it down. Besides,
it was with Gryzlov the chairman that the parliament adopted a
record number of laws."
A lawmaker from the United Russia faction said, "Well, I
guess that the outcome of the election and mass protests emphasize
the need for a new chairman in the lower house of the parliament."
"Naryshkin is neutral. He is a bureaucrat who is doing his
job and nothing more. I do not think that he will try to engineer
the strengthening of the Duma," said political scientist Mikhail
Some others were considered for the vacancy as well, Deputy
Premier Victor Zubkov among them. Yesterday, Zubkov voided his
mandate of lawmaker. (Like other deputy premiers, Zubkov had
headed a regional ticket of the ruling party. He was formally
elected into the Duma.) Deputy premiers Alexander Zhukov and
Dmitry Kozak bide their time. Neither has voided his mandate as
yet, but insiders claim that Kozak's waiver was already forwarded
to the Central Electoral Commission. A source close to Zhukov said
that he was prepared to step down from the government indeed.
"Granted that Zhukov has the necessary experience because he
worked in the Duma in his time, he has never aspired to
chairmanship," said the source.
President Dmitry Medvedev is another executive the ruling
party enlisted the services of. The head of the federal ticket of
United Russia, Medvedev has to waive his mandate too before long.
His Press Secretary Natalia Timakova denied the knowledge of when
he intended to do so. Sources within the Central Electoral
Commission said that his waiver was there already, soon to be
formally acknowledged.
Yuri Shuvalov of United Russia General Council said that this
ruling body was meeting Saturday and that the name of the new Duma
chairman would be announced after the meeting. Shuvalov even
allowed for the possibility that the Duma would be chaired by one
person and the United Russia faction by another. Some sources
assumed that the leadership in the faction might be offered to
Sergei Neverov, Secretary of the Presidium of the General Council.
[return to Contents]
Moscow Times
December 15, 2011
New Duma Draws From Politburo and Playboy
By Nikolaus von Twickel
A former Playboy playmate, a former Politburo member, a champion boxer, actors
and scores of businessmen are among the motley crew of deputies-elect to the new
State Duma, which will convene for the first time next week.
Despite last weekend's demands by tens of thousands of protesters to annul the
Dec. 4 vote, President Dmitry Medvedev decreed Tuesday that the lower house of
parliament will convene for its first session next Wednesday, Dec 21.
United Russia's presence will be significantly smaller compared with the outgoing
Duma, but the party will still hold a simple majority of the seats that will
allow the parliament to continue to effectively rubber-stamp Kremlin-backed
legislation, a role that it has assumed during Vladimir Putin's decade in power.
The list of new United Russia lawmakers includes Maria Kozhevnikova, who stars in
the "Univer" television series and was Russian Playboy's front-page girl in 2009.
Before being elected into parliament, she was voted the country's sexiest woman
by Maxim magazine this fall.
Kozhevnikova, 27, will sit in the same faction with Vladimir Dolgikh, 87, who is
expected to open the new season as parliament's oldest member. Dolgikh, who
oversaw the metallurgy sector in the Soviet Politburo of the 1980s, snatched the
honor of opening the session from Physics Nobel laureate Zhores Alferov, who is
six years younger than him and opened the new Duma in December 2007 at a
comparably youthful 77.
Alferov was re-elected as a Communist deputy, according to the final list
approved by the Central Elections Commission and published by Rossiiskaya Gazeta
this week.
Other parliamentary newcomers are former heavyweight boxer Nikolai Valuyev, who
famously claimed to have uncovered evidence of a Siberian Yeti during his
campaign in the Kemerovo region, tennis star Marat Safin, actors Lyudmila
Maksakova and Vladimir Mashkov and Mikhail Piotrovsky, director of St.
Petersburg's Hermitage Museum.
Also new to parliament will be Dmitry Khorolya, a native of the Arctic Yamal
region who heads the country's reindeer association.
In a sign that online campaigning is gaining significance, Vladimir Burmatov, who
could be called United Russia's first Twitter activist, will enter the Duma.
Burmatov, who has almost 50,000 Twitter followers, rose to fame in September when
he initiated a campaign with the "SPASIBOPUTINAZAETO," or "Thank Putin for That,"
hashtag, which became the first Russian-language topic to enter Twitter's global
trending top 10.
United Russia has previously sent celebrities to the Duma, including former
Olympic gymnast Alina Kabayeva and wrestling champion Alexander Karelin, who were
both re-elected.
But this time many of the unconventional additions will join the party's faction
without being members thanks to party leader Prime Minister Putin's decision to
form the All-Russia People's Front, enabling outsiders to stand on the party
Putin has said the front should renew the party with fresh faces, and party
officials claim that it should provide a quarter of United Russia's Duma members.
Yet that did not save the ruling party from sliding 14 percentage points to 49
percent in the official election results, which in turn has been questioned by
opposition parties amid accusations of widespread vote-rigging.
This and the fact that the party will be reduced from originally 315 to 238 of
the 450 Duma seats means that quite a few United Russia faces are bound to vanish
from parliament.
Among the most prominent outgoing deputies is Sergei Markov, the talkative
Kremlin-connected veteran pundit who failed to gain a place on the party list in
primaries in the Stavropol region.
His place is likely to be filled by the newly elected Vyacheslav Nikonov, who has
been running the Kremlin-connected Politika Foundation.
Also left out were Irina Yarovaya, who heads United Russia's influential
"patriotic club" platform, and Viktor Abramov, who oversees the party finances.
But United Russia's electoral list is awash with senior officials whose presence
was aimed to boost the party's popularity but are not expected to take their
seats, meaning that chances are high for second-tier candidates to make it into
parliament after all.
The list of so-called locomotives, or paravozy, is headed by President Medvedev,
who is the party's sole federal candidate, and includes many regional governors.
One of the first to profit from this was Soviet crooner Iosif Kobzon, whose Duma
seat was confirmed Tuesday after a party official in the Siberian Zabaikalsky
region made way for him, RBC Daily reported.
Critics say that sending celebrities to the Duma is part of a strategy to
emasculate lawmakers to mere pawns who vote for whatever their faction bosses
tell them, but United Russia's Markov denied this, saying it helps stem falling
popular support for parliament in general.
"People want to vote for celebrities and not for politicians this is a global
phenomenon," he told The Moscow Times.
Not equipped with a powerful leader like Putin, who seemingly forms mass
movements like the All-Russia People's Front at the drop of a hat, the three
opposition parties are nevertheless also fielding candidates with lean political
Veteran nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky's Liberal Democrat Party is again
sending Andrei Lugovoi, the former bodyguard accused by British police in the
poisoning death of Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko in 2006.
Also on Zhirinovsky's team is Leonid Slutsky, who this summer landed by
helicopter in the famous Lavra Monastery of Sergiyev Posad outside Moscow,
explaining that this was the only way to beat traffic jams and be on time for a
meeting with Patriarch Kirill.
However, the LDPR, which has long denied accusations of selling parliamentary
seats to wealthy bidders, will be without some of its more prominent millionaire
members, first and foremost businessman Ashot Yegiazaryan, who fled to the United
States last year amid a fraud investigation.
Also gone from the party's ranks will be Rifat Shaikhutdinov, a political
strategist who paradoxically served as billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov's campaign
manager for the Right Cause party this summer while being a sitting LDPR Duma
The party also won't forward Valery Budanov, whose father, Yury, was shot dead
this summer in Moscow after serving a prison sentence for raping and killing a
Chechen girl while serving as an officer during the second Chechen war.
The first choice for rich businessmen seeking parliamentary posts is usually
United Russia because of its intimate government ties, but this time it looks
like some of its wealthiest deputies won't get in.
Leonid Simanovsky, a former Yukos vice president who last year ranked as the
richest Duma member with a declared $40 million income for 2009, did not make it
onto the list. Also gone is supermarket tycoon Vladimir Gruzdev, who has become
governor of the Tula region.
But also the Communists and the leftist A Just Russia party boast "moneybags," as
wealthy deputies are known in Russian. The Communists have Sergei Muravlenko and
Viktor Vidmanov on their list of so-called "red millionaires." Muravlenko is a
former Yukos executive, and Vidmanov, president of the Rosagropromstroi
agro-industrial group, is a long-running party sponsor.
The party is also sending new deputies to the Duma whose Communist convictions
were previously not well known. Among them is Vasily Likhachyov, a former
ambassador to the EU and deputy justice minister who headed the party list in
A powerful Communist newcomer is Viktor Cherkesov, a St. Petersburg KGB veteran
and purported member of Putin's inner circle who played a key role in clashes
between powerful security services members in 2007 when he headed the Federal
Drug Control Service.
A Just Russia, which appears to be undergoing a partial transformation from a
Kremlin-created party into an opposition force, will again boast Sergei Petrov,
founder of the Rolf car dealership, and influential Chechen businessman Adnan
But despite the reduction of United Russia seats and the presence of outspoken
lawmakers like A Just Russia's Gennady Gudkov and Ilya Ponomaryov, observers
doubt that the new Duma will gain much political influence compared with its
"It's legitimacy will be extremely low, especially after the serious
falsification allegations," said Andrei Ryabov, an analyst with the Carnegie
Moscow Center.
[return to Contents]
Moscow News
December 14, 2011
Voters unsurprised by election results poll
By Nathan Toohey
The vast majority of Russian voters were not surprised by the State Duma election
results, a poll by the All-Russia Center for Public Opinion, or VTsIOM, released
on Wednesday revealed. Eight-five percent of respondents said that the results
were completely expected, while only 6 percent said they came as a surprise (9
percent said the question was difficult to answer). United Russia voters were the
least surprised with 92 percent of its supporters unsurprised by the vote.
As expected
"United Russia supporters expected that they would get less than last time, but
still a majority," Kommersant quoted Russian Academy of Science senior academic
researcher Leonty Byzov as saying on Wednesday.
"The opposition expected that they would receive more than last time, but would
not win. From this point of view, all turned out as expected," said VTsIOM head
Valery Fyodorov.
Civic duty
The main motivating factor in Russians' decision to go to the polls was their
feeling of civic duty with 60 percent naming this reason. Thirty-one percent said
that they voted to support their preferred party or candidate, while 31 percent
said they always went to the polls. Twenty-five percent said that they did not
want someone else deciding their vote, which was up from 18 percent in 2007.
Growing distrust
Senior academic researcher Leonty Byzov said that voters' distrust had grown.
"The share has grown of those who voted because they did not want their vote to
be stolen," Kommersant quoted Byzov as saying. "For the older generation
elections are a ritual, they legitimize a person as a citizen, rather than as a
person who wants to change something. They do not care, it is the act of
participation that is important," Byzov said. "People even vote for the
opposition parties, not assuming that they would change anything."
[return to Contents]
Moskovsky Komsomolets
December 15, 2011
An update on the forthcoming presidential race
Author: Mikhail Zubov, Igor Karmazin
[An update on the forthcoming presidential race.]
December 15 is the last day when the Central Electoral
Commission accepts documents from self-nominees for president
(representatives of political parties will have a couple of days
more). Candidate for president Mikhail Prokhorov intends to begin
collection of signatures in his support, today. For starters, he
needs 500 signatures for the Central Electoral Commission to
register his spearhead.
Prokhorov will need 2 million signatures after that. It is
clear that ONEXIM employees alone cannot give him the necessary
amount. Prokhorov needs political allies. Does he have any? Will
the Right Cause party support the business tycoon it elbowed out a
couple of months ago?
"No problems," said Boris Nadezhdin, leader of the Moscow
regional organization of Right Cause. "I know now who to vote for.
First, however, Prokhorov will have to obtain registration. I can
help him... with collection of signatures, with PR here in the
Moscow region. I even reckon that all of the Right Cause party
will support Prokhorov... if he needs our support, that is. I just
hope that the Central Electoral Commission won't try to throw sand
in machinery, because collection of signatures is a chore even
without artificial difficulties."
Question: Andrei Bogdanov is an expert in collection of
signatures... And by the way, do you know by any chance who is
going to head Prokhorov's election center?
Nadezhdin said, "I hope that Prokhorov will do without
Bogdanov. As for the election center, that's a major headache.
Prokhorov staffed with it thoroughly inadequate individuals before
the parliamentary election. He enlisted the services of Ukrainian
political scientists who had no inkling of what elections in
Russia where... To say that they failed is to say nothing at
all... I hope that he knows better now."
Sources close Prokhorov himself would not identify the head
of his election center for the time being. It is known
nevertheless that Prokhorov once again hired the same press
secretary who had worked for him during his short spell as the
Right Cause leader. Yevgeny Roizman was invited into the election
center. He said, "As a matter of fact, Prokhorov asked me to come
and attend the meeting of the election center following collection
of the first 500 signatures. I do not know who else will be
there... And by the way, I'm getting countless phone calls
already. People call, they want to know what they can do to help
People's Freedom Party is another force whose potential and
resource Prokhorov might find useful. Unfortunately, as is typical
of the People's Freedom Party, the assortment of opinions within
its upper echelons is staggering in scope. Meaning, in other
words, that its chairmen are split.
Mikhail Kasianov said when asked whether he would support
Prokhorov, "We are not going to support Putin, Communists, and
Zhirinovsky. As for all the rest, time will show."
Boris Nemtsov said, "We'll decide when all candidates have
been registered. All I know for sure at this point is that his
people never approached us."
Vladimir Ryzhkov said, "Supporting Prokhorov? It's unlikely.
Prokhorov openly calls himself Putin's follower. That's a laugh
really when Prokhorov says that he is for Putin and then nominates
himself for president, three days later. We suspect that Prokhorov
is just another project orchestrated by the Kremlin. It is not an
unreasonable suspicion, you know. Dunayev and Bogdanov, the people
who kicked him out of Right Cause on the orders from the Kremlin a
couple of months ago, promise Prokhorov their support now. What do
you make of it? ... Prokhorov never brings up sensitive issues
like corruption in the upper echelons of state power. I suspect
that Prokhorov is supposed to split the enraged protesters, that's
all. He is only supposed to help the regime abate social
Sergei Mironov of Fair Russia and Vladimir Zhirinovsky of the
LDPR, other candidates for president, already made derisive
statements calling Prokhorov's chances "miserable". Their
indignation is understandable. Prokhorov is just a man who might
deprive them of some protest votes.
There were 18 candidates for president last time. The list
comprised Medvedev, Zyuganov, and Zhirinovsky nominated by
political parties and 15 self-nominees including quixotic figures
like dissenter Bukovsky and chess-player a.k.a. opposition leader
Kasparov. The Central Electoral Commission permitted only two of
those fifteen to start collecting signatures - Kasianov and
Bogdanov. Signatures collected by Kasianov were invalidated.
Bogdanov was permitted to actually run for president which he did
and came in fourth.
These days, the list of candidates is considerably shorter.
It includes four candidates nominated by political parties (Putin,
Zyuganov, Mironov, Zhirinovsky), Lieutenant General Leonid
Ivashov, ex-mayor of Vladivostok Victor Cherepkov, healer
Levashov, Prokhorov, and Eduard Limonov. Grigori Yavlinsky said
that he would be running too but the Central Electoral Commission
is still waiting for his documents.
Irkutsk Governor Dmitry Mezentsev became a candidate
yesterday. Formally, he was nominated by the trade union of the
East-Siberian Railway. Mezentsev became the first governor since
2000 aspiring to presidency. He has been Irkutsk governor since
2009. It is known that Mezentsev is on good terms with Putin. It
is known as well that Mezentsev is not a member of the ruling
Political scientists unanimously say that Mezentsev would
have never gone for it entirely on his own. Yevgeny Minchenko of
the International Institute of Political Expertise said, "The
Kremlin is trying to form a new agenda and distract society from
the scandalous parliamentary election and the protests that
followed it. Hence all the latest developments, resonant all of
them - Kudrin's interview, Prokhorov's nomination, and here we
have Mezentsev as well."
Mezentsev is probably expected to play the part Bogdanov
played in the previous presidential campaign. Should all
candidates from the opposition step down from the race (it is
unlikely but theoretically possible), Mezentsev will be there to
ensure legitimacy of the election. Mikhail Vinogradov of the
St.Petersburg Politics Foundation admitted meanwhile that he
expected the Central Electoral Commission to let Prokhorov go for
it too.
[return to Contents]
Opposition Needs Quick Action on Presidential Candidate
Moskovskiy Komsomolets
December 13, 2011
Commentary by Vladislav Inozemtsev: Russia Needs Its Own Vaclav Havel
On Saturday 10 December Russia in many ways became different. Tens of thousands
of people came to Bolotnaya Square to say that they were not willing to reconcile
with a regime that distorts the results of elections and openly ignores the will
of the people. The people showed that they do not have to be bused to the place
of the rally in organized fashion the way that pro-regime lackeys have to be
gathered. They demonstrated that they are not too willing to listen to
nationalists and those who call to fight again for Soviet power. The rally-goers
were calm and organized and their faces shone with pride in themselves and those
standing alongside them.
Bold speeches such as had not been heard in public space for a long time rang out
over the square. The slogans proclaimed at the rally ("Away with Putin!" "Churov
should resign!" "We want new elections!" "Freedom for political prisoners!")
inspired a hope that rapid and radical changes are possible in Russia. Everything
indicated that this meeting of responsible citizens will not be the last, but
rather the wave of indignation will only grow...
But we should not flatter ourselves. If Russia became different in many ways
Saturday, in even more ways it remained as before. The very next day it became
known that Medvedev "did not agree with the slogans or the statements heard at
the rallies"; that Churov does not intend to resign; and that Putin does not
consider it necessary to respond to the very fact that citizens demonstrated
their resolve, as if it never happened at all. Russia lives on just as it did
before the start of protest activity. None of the newly elected Duma members
renounced his mandate and nothing changed in the notorious vertical hierarchy of
power. Of course, it may seem that just one more effort is needed, that we should
bring 300,000 or 500,000 people out on the square -- and everything will change.
I am certain that that will not happen.
The citizens of Russia who came out into the streets of Russian cities on 10
December are linked by educated intelligence and responsibility. They feel their
strength, but they will not abuse it. They could (or will be able to in the
future) break through the cordon and move into the Kremlin, but they are
convinced that they should not do that. They are worthy representatives of the
new, European Russia who respect the law and oppose violations of it.
But the law is "severe" and it says that an entirely new election campaign has
already begun in Russia. It will conclude on 4 March with the election of a
president, after which there will be political hard times from which a nonviolent
escape will not occur. Of course, Putin's victory in this election will most
likely bring half a million or a million people out into the streets of the
cities -- but what of it, if the historical choice has already been made?
Over Bolotnaya Square the saying, "When we are united we are invincible!" was
heard and the banners read, "One for all and all for one!" There was no doubt
that "all" were "one" on this day. But who was the "one" who is fated to lead
these "all" to victory? Meanwhile registration of candidates for president closes
next Friday, 16 December. And perhaps we should be happy that even more
responsible citizens will come to the rallies on 17 or 24 December -- if all this
were not to a certain degree meaningless.
The tens of thousands who gathered to free Russia from the Putin regime listened
hungrily to the orators. But did the orators say anything new? It seemed to me
that they did not. Who were the rally-goers addressing their demands to? To a
regime that was sitting behind walls and fences and intending not to hear them.
But then a much more powerful message was not heard at the rally -- those
assembled did not make a demand of those who assembled them, who were close by
and not hiding from them. And the demand should have been one word: "Unite!"
Let us recall who spoke from the stage. They are all worthy and honest people,
patriots of the motherland, and defenders of the law. But several orators came
from the congress of a party that a few hours before this had nominated as its
presidential candidate a person who defended the idea of a third term for Putin
in 2008 but in 2004 already "opposed" him in the election and garnered 0.75% of
the vote -- less than Zhirinovskiy's bodyguard. Another one will unquestionably
be nominated by his own political party, which made a marked gain in the
elections. The next one -- honor and praise for his determination -- went out the
next day and actually gathered the 500 signatures required for nomination in the
immediate vicinity of the Izmaylovo Hotel. And they all are much further from
being united than those who came to support them. And we will not forget that
those who came did not notice this, or at least they did not show their
bewilderment in any way.
The tragedy of contemporary Russia is that honest people in our country are much
worse at making agreements than the crooks and thieves are. It is also in the
fact that even the most worthy citizens are more inclined to listen to the great
leaders than to give them directions.
The people who came to the rally Saturday should have behaved differently. They
were obliged to ask the question, did the organizers agree on anything bigger
than whether to gather again on 24 December. To inquire why the opposition has
support in society, but no leader -- the one among many.
The people are ready for unification. Are the people who can move this
unification to the political proscenium ready for it? Can it be true that the
people assembled there did not understand that by the end of the rally less than
150 hours remained until the most important choice for the opposition? Not weeks,
not days, but hours. And what reason was there not to force the organizers right
there, in front of this giant force exuding enormous energy, to join hands and
say, pointing to one of them: here is our and your leader!
In my view, he should not be a politician who fell from power earlier, and not a
young agitator who has only just begun striving. Judging by the public gathered
on the square, Russia needs its own Vaclav Havel, an intellectual about whom no
one can say anything bad and who has never collaborated with the regime or been
included in it. Only one such person addressed the people from the stage Saturday
- Boris Akunin.
But I do not insist on a concrete candidate. Something else is important. People
should declare clearly: here is our candidate. He is not ideal, but we are
prepared to support him. And go into the second round on 4 March. And defend an
honest vote count on the 18th. And in early May deal with Churov and the corrupt
officials. Yes, and disband the Duma and organize free elections. All this will
be, but we need to unite now!
These most important words were not heard at the rally. No one saw to it that a
notary was invited and right there, at Udarnik or the Stage Theater, the presence
of half a thousand people supporting the chosen candidate was officially
recorded. So that at the next rally the next steps in collecting signatures in
his support and in forming a group of supporters in every region could be
It is clear today that the authorities will disqualify any 2 million signatures,
and the only chance is to notarize not the signatures of the collectors, but the
personal signature of every signatory. Notarizing a signature costs 350 rubles a
person, or more than $20 million. "From above," from headquarters it will not be
possible now to set up the procedure and to collect such an amount in what is
essentially the New Year's holiday season. But really, is 350 rubles a person too
high a price for our and your freedom? Is it really that difficult to coordinate
actions through the Internet, find honest and responsible notaries, and organize
a stream of citizens to signature verification points? And so on. But as people
once said, y ou have to fight for your rights...
But these questions were not raised and it appears that they still have not been
today. That means that the rallies will end and life will go back to how it was
for the last 12 years. Doesn't that make all of us who came to Bolotnaya feel
[return to Contents]
INSOR Chief Igor Yurgens on Protest Movement's Postelection Prospects
December 14, 2011
Interview with Igor Yurgens, head of the Institute of Contemporary Development,
by Aleksandr Artemyev: "'INSOR Can Help Give Young People Advice': Igor Yurgens,
Head of 'Medvedev's' INSOR, on the Protests' Prospects"
On 24 December, Igor Yurgens, head of the Institute of Contemporary Development
and vice-president of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, who
is considered one of President Dmitriy Medvedev's top advisors, paid an
unexpected visit to the rally's organizing committee. Yurgens explained to
Gazeta.ru how he sees the transition from the present protest activity to real
democratic procedures.
(Artemyev) What compelled you to take part in the meeting of the organizing
committee for the 24 December rally "For Honest Elections," considering its
ultra-oppositionist orientation?
(Yurgens) We have to understand how people want to continue their actions. From
my point of view, we older people who created the organizing committee yesterday
(Yurgens is talking about the creation on 12 December of a Russia-wide
roundtable. -- Gazeta.ru) have to understand what measures the young people might
propose and what methods of their organization might be most effective. From my
point of view, some kind of crowd sourcing has to be applied here, a system in
which each person can express his opinion, and someone filters, compiles the
ideas, and organizes people around decision-making points.
I'm interested in the crowd sourcing of this process (the organization of the
protest movement. -- Gazeta. ru). It is perfectly obvious that nationalists and
internationalists, liberals, and young people, who are completely class-free, and
those in favor of "isms" cannot be united here (within the framework of the
organizing committee).
(Artemyev) Are you talking about the failure of traditional political coalitions
on the example of this rally's organizing committee?
(Yurgens) Absolutely. Look here, they said an organizing committee has assembled,
so I went and told them, "Come with your 'special methods,' carry out two
iterations of the nomination, and then at the rally itself vote for your
organizing committee through iPhones, iPads, and laptops." And they told me,
"That's impossible. They turn off the Internet there." It is impossible to get
anything done if the organizing committee won't agree on anything, in addition:
(a) there will be lots of provocateurs, and (b) the nationalists will never agree
with the internationalists. Crowd sourcing provides an opportunity to organize
groups and carry out work without even coming out to a rally at first, and then
working out strategies and moving forward.
(Artemyev) Are you taking grass-roots movements like those in the United States
as an example?
(Yurgens) Yes, like those in the United States, but afterward in more complex
systems of interaction. The second part of such a system could be a human rights
council under the president and INSOR, that is, eggheads, who could give the
young people their advice on how to avoid the mistakes that began to be committed
back between 1905 and 1907.
(Artemyev) Do you view this situation as an abstract experiment in social
engineering or can we still view your advice as political practice?
(Yurgens) I don't think we'll manage to accomplish anything by the (presidential)
elections, although it would be good. We're talking about a third party, let's
call it that provisionally, of those people who are neither "conservers" nor
"modernizers," no matter how either group settles out into parliamentary and
nonparliamentary parties. There is also a third structural force that wants just
one thing: respect for its human dignity. How it will later settle out into party
groups and interests is a secondary matter. Right now, though, it faces the task
of making the regime more honest and more transparent, and after that, well, we
ourselves will disperse to our party quarters. The question is how to take this
third force into consideration in the next elections and in political life in
general; after all, if it is not taken into consideration at all, the mo st legal
component of the political community dissolves.
(Artemyev) In the modern political context, what you're talking about would be
difficult. I have in mind party legislation, electoral legislation; after all,
somehow the interests of this "third force" have to be formulated through legal
(Yurgens) In modern conditions this would be almost impossible to do by any means
other than crowd sourcing. I can cite an example. (German) Gref had a very
complicated and important problem at Sberbank. He solved it for $20,000, although
there was $2 million set aside in the bank's budget for this. He formulated the
problem, sent its description out over the networks, and said, "For the best
option for solving it you will get $20,000." Lots of suggestions came in, and the
solution was found to this complex technological banking problem. I know lots of
examples like this. Our problem is to decide how to make it so that each voice is
heard, and right now it isn't important what the final decision is, communist or
capitalist, just so it is a decision that takes human dignity into consideration.
(Artemyev) But how do you see this issue in the applied field?
(Yurgens) Look, young people will come to a rally. A rally, but then what. . . .
(Artemyev) You mean there has to be a link between the rally and real political
actions. . . .
(Yurgens) The first thing is to give some thought to how to bring this about.
(Artemyev) But for this there will need to be certain legislative initiatives
that introduce electronic representation mechanisms through that same Deputy Ilya
Ponomarev, who works with social technologies on the Net.
(Yurgens) Obviously. Here, too, you're not going to solve this problem right now.
Look, here we have Deputy Ponomarev, yes, but the other deputies are going to
say, "Ah, this is an SR (Just Russia member), and they won't vote, that's the
point. There also need to be certain decisions, and these decisions have to come
about through crowd sourcing. Look, here (at the organizing committee. --
Gazeta.ru) there is a plague and idiocy, although it's just 200 people. But when
there is a wave of ideas from thousands of people, the truth separates out. This
is how we once used foresight for the economy, and I want to say that this did
What Is the Russia-wide Roundtable?
The Russia-wide roundtable included several dozen public and political figures,
including Sergey Aleksashenko, Lyudmila Alekseyeva, Liya Akhedzhakova, Valeriy
Borshchev, and Vladimir Voynovich. . . .
What Is Crowd Sourcing?
Crowd sourcing is a business practice that is widespread primarily in IT
technologies. It assumes that specific productive functions can be carried out
without limit. . . .
[return to Contents]
PBS Newshour
December 13, 2011
In Wake of Disputed Election, Russian Middle Class 'Finding its Voice'
MARGARET WARNER: And joining us now are Matthew Murray, chair of the Center for
Business Ethics and Corporate Governance, a nonprofit he helped found with a
group of Russian and American businesses and NGOs. It works to promote integrity
in Russian government and business entities. And Fiona Hill, a senior fellow at
the Brookings Institution, from 2006 to 2009, she served as national intelligence
officer for Russia and Eurasia at the National Intelligence Council.
And welcome to you both.
Fiona Hill, it wasn't long ago that Vladimir Putin was hugely popular for raising
living standards and bringing order to Russia, despite his concentration of
power. What happened?
FIONA HILL, Brookings Institution: Well, I think, in many respects, it's what we
call -- or some people call the seven-year itch of politics.
After a certain period, the brand, the political brand gets stale. And you see
that with many long-serving leaders. Think about some of the European figures
most recently, like Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher, using my British perspective
here, enormously popular when they came in. And towards the end of their tenure,
after they had gone through two terms and we really got into that -- the end of
that decade, they started to lose their popularity. People got a little tired of
seeing them.
So, in other words, Mr. Putin's brand has gone stale, and he hasn't been able to
reinvigorate it.
MARGARET WARNER: And what would you add to that, Matthew Murray, I mean, about
why it suddenly seems to have coalesced and erupted like this?
MATTHEW MURRAY, Center for Business Ethics and Corporate Governance: I think it's
become clear that the institutions that have been set up to handle social issues
are not working. So, the system isn't working. And it has to be dismantled. And
new laws and institutions need to be established.
MARGARET WARNER: I know, but we have a phenomenon that is just -- that is
erupting on the streets.
I mean, do you agree with the analysts who say very much this deal that Putin and
Medvedev struck again in flipping jobs, that that was really a spark?
MATTHEW MURRAY: Right. That was a spark to a change in the political culture.
What we're witnessing right now is a change in the way people think about
politics. Consciousness-raising is occurring on a mass scale. It's being
supported by the social media. And it's a very interesting moment for Russian
MARGARET WARNER: Which -- ironically, though, the Putin government has -- totally
controls the television. They hadn't really controlled the Internet much, had
FIONA HILL: Yes, they have actually taken a very interesting tactic toward the
Internet, because they didn't go down the route that we have seen in China, where
they have essentially intercepted and imprisoned very prominent bloggers, they
have tried to block and censor websites and various Internet portals that they
haven't liked.
What they have tried to do in Russia was fill the Internet with their own
content. But they couldn't be everywhere at once. And, basically, what we have
seen is Russians have become some of the most active social networkers in the
world. They have their own version of Facebook to contact you.
They have innumerable postings on YouTube. It's become a really prolific way of
people exchanging information with each other. And, essentially, people were
getting their own information about politics that was outside of the government
MARGARET WARNER: Now, tell us about the opposition, Matthew Murray. Who are the
people in the streets? Is this just a phenomenon of the kind of urban Twitterati,
or do the election results suggest there's deeper discontent?
MATTHEW MURRAY: I think it's broader than that. I think it's the middle class
that is finding its voice and finding its identity.
And they're saying, it's time for us to self-organize. It's time for us to take
responsibility. We actually have a seat at the table, and let's assert our rights
and hold the government accountable.
MARGARET WARNER: And they -- at least from some of their chants, they seem to
feel as if Putin was treating them like imbeciles. Explain that.
MATTHEW MURRAY: The phrase that's been repeated several times in Moscow and
throughout Russia over the past week is, "We exist." They're making a statement
that they are no longer going to be defined solely in relation to the state.
They're going to have their own independent autonomy.
MARGARET WARNER: So, Fiona Hill, how do you regard the way Putin reacted, now,
the first week, a very heavy hand, police, arrests, but then Saturday letting the
protests go forward?
FIONA HILL: Yes, Putin is a real student of Russian history, for one thing. And
he knows that, in the past -- the long past of Russia, because he's looked back
over several hundred years -- whenever the government has cracked down, that has
been the spark for revolt, the Russian Revolution in 1917, revolts in 1905, and
during the Soviet period, similar things.
It was what brought Gorbachev down was in fact -- as we will recall looking back
20 years, was the heavy-handed approach to protests in Vilnius in modern-day
Lithuania. So, Putin knows that there's a real danger of things getting out of
hand if they come down too heavy-handed.
I think what he also does from his KGB training is he has been a student for
years of analyzing how people think. So they're probably engaged right now in
going back and looking at focus groups and polls. He's declared there is going to
be a big call-in session where he's going to take questions from the populace.
They're going to study very carefully what people's grievances are and then
figure out how to react. So, I think what they're doing now is reassessing and
trying to pick up on this mood that Matthew has talked about to figure out what
they need to do to try to address this.
MARGARET WARNER: And I know you have been back for a little bit, not long, what,
a month, but what is the -- the sort of unformed opposition doing right now? If
Putin is sitting in the Kremlin with his people trying to analyze the body
politic, what are they doing?
MATTHEW MURRAY: Well, first of all, they came up with a list of demands. They're
finding action items that they can use to focus their frustration and their anger
and get better organized.
MARGARET WARNER: So, give me two.
MATTHEW MURRAY: Well, they have demanded that the election results be revoked.
MARGARET WARNER: Exactly.
MATTHEW MURRAY: And they also demanded that there be new legal institutions in
place that can monitor elections in the future.
So, they're taking steps -- I mean, this is the key. The key is whether, after
the demonstrations have subsided a bit, and after they have been able to make an
assessment, will they do the painstaking work that's necessary to make Russian
laws and institutions work? Will they reform their own system?
I would argue that they have plenty of tools available to do that.
MARGARET WARNER: And what do you make of this billionaire, Prokhorov, getting in
the race? One, is he a credible opponent for Putin? And, two, does it suggest to
you that the oligarchs or maybe the broader business class may -- may turn
against him?
FIONA HILL: Well, I will be honest. I'm very cynical about this.
I think, just as Matthew has described about the opposition, there's a whole
range of demands here, there is a very large segment of the business class that
would like to see their interests represented. They'd like to have more say over
really the institutional arrangements for their business. They want to have rule
of law. They would like to see a lot more implementation of the institutional
arrangements that have been promised.
They would like to be able to invest in the way that they see fit. They don't
like to have the heavy hand of the state or the predation that is coming from the
lack of enforcement of laws.
But Prokhorov is hardly an example of the average businessperson in Russia. He's
a phenomenally rich man. He has benefited from this system. He doesn't really
speak to most of the people who have been out on the streets of Moscow. He's a
celebrity candidate.
And, basically, I think that this is not a real contender, a real challenger for
Putin. In fact, what I would assess is that we're likely to see a whole host of
similar kinds of candidates get into the race, and we might end up with a very
crowded field as a result.
MARGARET WARNER: In which case, that would benefit Putin.
FIONA HILL: It would greatly benefit him.
MARGARET WARNER: So, where do you see things going from here?
MATTHEW MURRAY: Well, I think, first of all, that the system has to be changed.
It's a systemic problem.
And so, when it comes to the next steps, civil society has to sit down and decide
whether they're going to build independent courts. How are they going to insist
that law enforcement officials do their jobs? Putin has described his system as
the power vertical. It's now time to establish horizontal accountability, to hold
government in check and hold business in check, and give civil society an equal
seat at the table.
MARGARET WARNER: And, very briefly for you both, starting with you, Matthew
Murray, do you think that Putin is capable of leading this reform? Is he adept
and nimble enough to actually try to get ahead of this parade?
MATTHEW MURRAY: I think his -- I think Putinism is probably over, but Putin will
survive in some form.
FIONA HILL: I think he is certainly capable, he thinks, of really creating a
reform from the top.
What the difficulty will be will -- whether some of the sentiments that Matthew
has described, these grassroot demands, be filtered up and whether he will
address them. And that's the big question, because his instincts are not to
respond to protests from the streets. He thinks he has a plan of how to change
Russia. And he's not going to be necessarily listening to some of these voices
that are demanding a different kind of change.
MARGARET WARNER: Well, Fiona Hill and Matthew Murray, thank you.
MATTHEW MURRAY: Thank you.
FIONA HILL: Thank you.
[return to Contents]
Moscow Times
December 15, 2011
To Beat, or Not to Beat
By Alexander Golts
Alexander Golts is deputy editor of the online newspaper Yezhednevny Zhurnal.
Many observers have commented on how well-behaved, friendly and polite the police
were during Saturday's opposition rally. The police did not blink when protestors
chanted anti-Kremlin slogans or committed minor violations. Neither did they
intentionally provoke demonstrators as they have done repeatedly in the past.
Obviously, Kremlin officials decided on the eve of the rally to order troops not
to use force. They decided that if they could not prevent the rally, the best
approach would be to let the protesters blow off steam and dissipate on their
own. After all, this is not the summer. The days are getting colder, and soon
people will become preoccupied with New Year's celebrations and the accompanying
extended national holiday.
But any hopes for a return to the previous calm are unlikely to be bear out if
the demonstrations continue and the number of participants increases. Frankly,
there is little chance for a compromise between the authorities and the
opposition. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin insists that the protests are organized
by the U.S. State Department, and he really fears a "color revolution" in Russia.
In this state of paranoia, orders might be given to the military and other
security services to take actions that everyone would later regret.
Veteran special forces Lieutenant Colonel Anatoly Yermolin has issued an appeal
to fellow officers that clearly describes the situation: "Through your helmet
visor, you will see those who have gone off to serve their motherland. There will
be the faces of people who look very much like your fathers, mothers, brothers,
sisters, good friends and neighbors." He then asks how a special forces commander
should behave in a confrontation with fellow citizens. For him, the answer is
simple: "to continue to serve your people even when politicians and their
subordinate security ministers hand you an openly repressive task."
The military officer seems to have touched on the heart of the problem: People
considered by Russia's leaders to be enemies are not necessarily enemies of the
motherland. Furthermore, military personnel did not swear an oath to Putin or
Central Elections Commission chief Vladimir Churov but to the very people whom
they are sometimes ordered to beat.
Yermolin's recommendations boil down to two: First, orders from superiors should
be as well-documented as possible. After all, senior commanders understand
perfectly well that it is illegal to employ force against unarmed people and that
leaders will never give them such orders in writing. Second, commanders should be
prepared to get stabbed in the back by the politicians, who might provoke them
into behaving like animals against protesters in order to shift blame away from
themselves and onto the men wielding guns and batons.
Yermolin's advice is based on his experience in a sometimes prickly 20-year
relationship between the authorities and the security services. After all, the
lack of responsibility shown by the authorities has placed the security services
in the difficult position of deciding whether they should carry out orders to put
down popular demonstrations. This happened for the first time in 1991 during the
attempted putsch by the so-called State Committee of the State of Emergency. On
the evening of Aug. 19, Deputy Defense Minister Vladislav Achalov ordered
airborne troops commander Pavel Grachev to arrest all of Russia's leaders.
Grachev and his team agreed among themselves not to carry out the order, even
knowing that they might face a tribunal.
Only Boris Yeltsin found the will and the charisma needed to use the armed forces
for an internal political struggle and he succeeded only once, in October 1993
when he had to personally go to the Defense Ministry and spend several hours
persuading Grachev to use force against the Supreme Soviet. Clearly reluctant to
comply, Defense Minister Grachev demanded a written order from Yeltsin as he
also had demanded of the State Committee of the State of Emergency in 1991. With
the order in hand, the special forces opened heavy fire on people who had
attacked the Ostankino television center. Then tanks of the Taman division fired
directly at the White House. (The military and other security services must
remember, however, that under the Criminal Code even a written order does not
free them from responsibility for carrying out criminal orders.)
Why is it that the military refused to follow instructions in 1991 but agreed in
1993, two similar situations where there was no legitimate basis for orders? When
are servicemen ready to beat their fellow citizens and even kill them, as
happened in Tbilisi, Vilnius and Moscow in 1993? And when do they refuse?
Unfortunately, the reflex to unconditionally carry out orders can trump
considerations of sympathy or humanity. That is precisely why the authorities are
so careful to keep the military as part of the security-service structures. I
think that the military would have been more willing to act in 1991 if the
authorities had not already discredited themselves in their eyes. Commanders did
not object to the forceful suppression of nationalist movements in the Baltic
states and the South Caucasus. They disliked the way Russia's political
leadership tried to pin responsibility for those actions on the military.
Yeltsin, however, was unafraid to publicly assume full responsibility, so the
military carried out his order.
Does Putin have enough strength of character to do the same? Putin has repeatedly
shown that he considers it humiliating to submit to the demands of protesters who
he believes are under the influence of outside forces. But he has always yielded
to protests that he considered to be legitimate. Recall his reaction to
pensioners' protests over the monetization of benefits or the protests over
unpaid wages in Pikalyovo. Putin seems to consider social protests to be legal
but political protests to be illegal. That might be because political protests
have always been fairly small until recently. I suspect that an all-out struggle
for demonstrators to support this or that cause will be waged in the media and
the Internet in the coming weeks.
In any case, the best way to prevent the authorities from using force is to
mobilize tens of thousands of people for protest rallies. To accomplish that, the
opposition will have to agree on a common list of demands and, more important, a
single presidential candidate. If to dream, why not dream big?
[return to Contents]
RIA Novosti
December 15, 2011
Analysis: Russian state TV gingerly breaks silence on dissent
By Marc Bennetts
Russian state television, long known for omitting coverage of political dissent
in news broadcasts, moved recently into new territory when it covered the largest
anti-government protests here for nearly two decades.
In light of that shift, which caught many by surprise, the question people are
asking now, analysts say, is: Was that coverage a one-off event or might it
signal an easing in government management of news broadcasting on state networks?
"Reaction among Russians would have been pretty much the same if they had shown
aliens landing," Natalya Radulova, columnist with the well-known Ogonyok magazine
and the Moscow-based Vzglyad newspaper, wrote in her blog this week.
"Who are they? Where are they from? Why didn't we hear about them before?" she
said, suggesting that viewers without access to the internet, where the protest
began to gather steam, were dumbfounded by the sudden change in television news.
Tens of thousands of people turned out in Moscow last Saturday to protest the
results of legislative elections on December 4 won by Prime Minister Vladimir
Putin's United Russia party.
They charge that the elections were riddled with cheating and should be
thoroughly reviewed or annulled and rerun. The government says reports of vote
irregularities will be investigated but assert the election was fair overall and
produced results reflecting the "real" sentiment in Russian society.
Breaking taboos
Smaller protests in Moscow earlier in the week against alleged vote fraud in
favor United Russia were essentially ignored by the state networks, with some
opting instead to show images of Kremlin supporters parading near Red Square -
the fare state television news viewers have come to expect.
But then the main Channel One network led its Saturday evening news broadcast
with a report on the mass demonstration in central Moscow that drew around 25,000
people, according to police, and around double that according to organizers.
Channel One, along with the NTV network which is controlled by state gas giant
Gazprom and the Russia 1 channel, followed on their Sunday weekly news review
shows by giving more airtime to the protest and public debate over the elections.
Breaking long-standing taboos further, the networks broadcast footage of hardline
Putin opponents like Mikhail Kasyanov, a former prime minister, Boris Nemtsov, a
former deputy prime minister and even firebrand writer and activist Eduard
Limonov - figures whose faces and anti-government protest activities have, as a
rule, been considered for many years off-limits for state television news.
"Tens of thousands of people came out to register their disagreement with the
results of recent parliamentary elections, which they said were rigged in favour
of the United Russia party," NTV news anchor Pivovarov announced on his
broadcast, reporting the facts of the day just as any independent news outlet
Pivovarov had threatened not to show up for work if NTV did not cover the Moscow
protest, the Kommersant newspaper reported on the eve of the demonstration.
Contacted by RIA-Novosti, the state television networks declined to offer comment
on the decision to cover the weekend protest.
Covered - but how?
Despite the bracing shift in state television news coverage of the mass
demonstration last weekend, however, analysts said the networks really had little
choice and cautioned last weekend's coverage did not signal a wider easing of
state control over television news.
"There's no point in being under any illusions," television critic Irina
Petrovskaya said on the liberal Echo Moscow radio station.
"This was done in a concrete situation when up to 100,000 people came out and the
picture spoke for itself. The situation on television as a whole will not
change," she predicted.
Pyotr Tolstoy, host of Channel One's weekly Sunday news analysis program,
described the protests to viewers as "a normal sign of the development of a civil
society." The Moscow rally, he went on, was less a "political" protest than a
statement by civil society that "elections must be honest."
And while state television did report on the demonstration, its coverage tended
toward the upbeat and minimized expressions of anger at the government -
specifically at Putin himself - that were a salient feature of the demonstration
"We're not here to fight," a smiling young woman was shown saying on the Channel
One broadcast. "We just want to be heard."
Another interviewee, a large middle-aged man, was even vaguer: "I came here to
see who else would turn up - and it turns out I'm not alone. Great!"
One report showed a group of young men who took part in the protest wearing
Halloween-style paper face masks, with the voiceover explaining that they had
done so because "it's more fun."
None of the broadcasts reported specifically on any of the numerous anti-Putin or
anti-United Russia sentiments that anyone present at the demonstration heard
Putin himself, however, said on Thursday that he considered legal political
demonstrations like the mass rally last weekend as "absolutely normal."
And in remarks likely to be studied closely by state television news managers as
guidance for future coverage, Putin stated that he, too, was among the millions
of Russians who watched and appreciated the television coverage of the protest.
"It is absolutely normal that people voice their views and discuss processes
under way in the country, in the economy, in the social sphere, in political
life, as long as they remain within the law," Putin said in his annual marathon
live television question and answer session with people around the country.
He referred on several occasions to watching the television coverage of
Saturday's protest himself, stating at one point: "I saw on the television
screens that these were mainly young, active people with their own views which
they expressed clearly."
A Kremlin plan?
The Gazeta.ru online newspaper quoted a Kremlin source as saying that the order
to show the protests on state television had been given personally by President
Dmitry Medvedev, often portrayed as the "liberal" partner in Russia's ruling
Some analysts however suggested that the surprising demonstration coverage was
part of a larger "divide and rule" plan aimed at drawing some of the heat out of
anti-government feeling in the country and paving the way for Putin's return to
the Kremlin after presidential elections next March.
"Television coverage at the weekend is not a sign of the future democratization
of state-run media," Alexander Morozov, head of the Center for Media Studies, a
Moscow think tank, told RIA Novosti.
"It was a tactical ploy in Putin's greater plan to become president. By showing
opposition leaders on TV, the Kremlin instigates competition and an eventual
split between them. In the meantime, it confuses their followers," he added.
Another expert, Alexei Mukhin, head of the Center for Political Information,
echoed that notion.
The decision was made to cover the Moscow protest on state television in order to
"reach out to the protest electorate, to soften them a bit, to sow doubts among
them and, eventually, to win some loyalty among those who now flatly and
stubbornly" oppose Putin's leadership, Mukhin said.
Despite the spin and speculation, analysts agreed however that the very fact the
Moscow protest was mentioned at all on state television - let alone given such
prominent coverage - is noteworthy in itself. This coverage, they said, brought
dissent into living rooms across Russia for the first time in many years.
"For more than ten years they've only been shown reports in support of Vladimir
Putin's government," Ogonyok's Radulova said. "And now, out of nowhere, there are
many thousands of people demonstrating against the elections results."
Organizers have announced plans to hold another demonstration against the
elections in Moscow on December 24. Tens of thousands of people have said through
Facebook sites and other social networks that they plan to attend that rally.
[return to Contents]
December 14, 2011
'I am Putin's propaganda'
By Polina Bykhovskaya
Polina Bykhovskaya is Russian journalist based In Moscow
Is it possible to challenge censors without losing your livelihood? Polina
Bykhovskaya interviews the men and women who wanted to change the world but ended
up in the business of job preservation (their's and Putin's)
Journalist A
Place of work: NTV [owned by state gas behemoth Gazprom]
When you say 'TV channel', you assume a community of people. But there is no such
communality, there is a divergence of interests. There is the management, who
want to cover their backs, there are the compliant journalistic 'bureaucrats' and
there are the partisans like us who are only tolerated because they liven up the
pages. And ratings matter to the management.
[Kremlin strategist Vladislav] Surkov's weekly press briefing is no secret,
though I have never actually been there. NTV's Director General Vladimir
Kulistikov checks all our programme running orders and can remove anything he
wants. Sometimes he throws out half the programme. There are certain subjects we
steer clear of completely. We can't touch anything connected with Chechnya, or
controversial stories about Rosmolodyozh (the Federal Youth Agency - trans) and
its head Vasily Yakemenko. And of course any minister can phone Putin and a story
will be dropped immediately.
This is normal practice, and there is nothing you can do about it. You can just
close your programme down, like Andrey Kolesnikov recently did. But Kolesnikov is
also a reporter for Kommersant, and the editor in chief of Russky Pioneer
magazine. Whereas I have no other work. We are in a rather unhealthy situation,
where there is no real media industry, and anyone can be thrown out of a job at
any moment and banned from following their profession. Parfyonov [Leonid
Parfyonov, an outspoken journalist whose current affairs programme on NTV was
closed down by the government in 2004] is one example of this. So self censorship
is the order of the day. Everyone is afraid of something.
In this situation all you can do is get on with your job: to entertain and inform
the public. It is difficult to identify with the people who watch TV, but in
Russia they are in the majority. Only 19 million households have broadband
internet access, which means the rest rely on television for their information.
All you can do is try to tell them about what is happening, but as obliquely as
possible. You have to resort to the language of Aesop. What you can't say
directly, you have to say not even between the lines, but through an extra layer
of parable.
These are guerrilla tactics. The paradox is that the better you do your work, the
more risky it becomes. I work on the 'do what you can and hang the consequences'
principle. We are not required to call black white, but we can be fired if we
call it black. The most seditious thing you can do on TV today is to describe
what is actually happening in plain Russian. And this is what we try to do. You
can vote with your feet, like Kolesnikov, but then you will be doing nothing at
All these officially commissioned bits of propaganda like the film about the
'Yukos Gang', the expose of Luzhkov, and the recent programme about the 'Golos'
election monitoring group divert people from covering civil rights issues. They
have of course ruined the channel's reputation, but in fact you have to pity
them. We spend all our time trying to prove that we are not 'that' NTV, but
another one completely.
Journalist B
Place of work: NTV [state gas behemoth Gazprom]
It's important to understand the technology: even if an item has to be pulled off
the air, technically this doesn't happen immediately. There is a TV server you
can upload to, and the item will go out anyway. At NTV the bosses only check the
running order for the first edition (for the Far East there are five editions in
all) and if they don't like an item they pull it. Small changes are made to about
half the items. Sometimes I deliberately slip in some clearly unacceptable remark
they will definitely cut, in the hope they won't notice a few other less obvious
ones. But sometimes they don't touch them. It's like the weather - unpredictable.
If an item goes out in the first edition and is pulled afterwards, then you can
put it on the internet. So there is more censorship of the programme for Moscow
than for Vladivostok. They are more careful with the Moscow edition because that
is the one watched by the presidential administration. But this is also absurd,
because you can watch all the different editions on catch-up.
This game has no set rules. Sometimes you get away with something usually taboo,
but subjects that have been permissible can also suddenly be declared off limits.
For example, in a recent edition of the 'NTV-shniks' programme the main speaker
was TV presenter and socialite Ksenya Sobchak. But after the 'oyster incident'
when Sobchak caught Vasily Yakemenko on camera in Moscow's most expensive
restaurant and the resultant video went viral on 'Youtube', the programme makers
were told to cut all Sobchak's contributions to the programme not an easy job
for the editor, but it could be done.
Another subject that turned out to be taboo was the debacle over the prison
sentence given to the 'paedophile' Makarov, supposedly because the paedophile
theme was brought up by Medvedev, but the police could not find enough proper
evidence against Makarov, so the subject was put out of bounds to avoid
discrediting Medvedev. Supposedly after a phone call from Medvedev himself. And
a year ago a story was pulled about a boy who died in an ambulance because he
could not legally be admitted to the nearest hospital. The rumour was that
Minister of Health and Social Development Tatyana Golikova had phoned Putin. Yes,
I know it sounds strange that the president and prime minister phone the
management of a TV channel to have some seven minute item dropped from the news.
I wasn't in the room, but it sounds plausible enough.
Unlike liberal channels such as 'Dozhd', we have the resources to produce high
quality reporting journalism. We have the travel budget and enough people. I also
like to think about our viewers: we need to do something for this multi-million
silent majority. If we get through to a few thousand of them, that's already
I work as though there is no censorship, and know when I have to compromise. If a
piece of blatant propaganda appears in my programme, I wash my hands of it. And I
reserve the right to do that publicly.
Journalist C
Former place of work: internet newspaper 'Vzglyad' [published by Konstantin
Rykov, former United Russia Deputy well known for his connections to the
presidential administration]
I was asked to join Vzglyad by a friend. He said I would not be required to write
propaganda, but warned that my articles might be edited. In the end I worked
there for just a few months.
No, I wasn't under any pressure. Some subjects were off limits, but on the whole
I didn't have to change my way of working. Once I interviewed a pro-Kremlin
political analyst about possible future developments in Russia's political
situation. I asked him several pointed questions, including one about the
influence of the electorate on the political process. But when the interview went
up on the site, the question was reformulated as 'Is it true the people still
trust United Russia?' Then there were the forest fires, and I was asked to write
an article about how one regional governor, a communist, hadn't allocated
adequate funds for rehousing people who had lost their homes. I went on to United
Russia's site and discovered that some 'United Russian' governors had allocated
even less. This wasn't some special investigative journalism, it was right there
on the site. I included that fact in my text, but it was cut, and after that
incident I left the job. The strangest thing was that the person who had altered
my texts was the editor who had given me the job in the first place. He's a real
professional with a good reputation and lots of experience. I don't know what he
was trying to prove.
I get the impression that we worry more about the wellbeing of United Russia than
they do themselves. I'm not an opposition journalist; I just believe it's
important to give objective information. And by the way, I wrote all my articles
at 'Vzglyad' under a pseudonym.
Journalist D
Former place of work: 'Zvezda' TV channel [run by Military of Defence]
I worked at Zvezda for about a year and left a few months ago. I became less a
victim of censorship than of greed the people there are more blatant about
creaming off the cash than on other channels. And the row arose over money they
wanted to fire me on the spot and asked me to return my previous month's salary,
but, as I said, this tells you more about their stupidity and greed. The only
thing to do with censorship was a remark by the channel's deputy director general
at the first meeting about a new programme, when he said, 'We shouldn't criticise
the government too much when we are taking money from it'. The first story I
began filming at Zvezda had the code name 'Office Totalitarianism' and the
producer and I worked our butts off to get permission to film in the office of a
certain Boyko and get an interview from him you probably know the name he's a
petty Russian Orthodox despot. It was milk from his firm, Russkoye Moloko, that
Putin and Medvedev were drinking in the famous photo. He has crosses hung up
above all his employees' desks, and if they are married he makes them go through
a church wedding. And they get fired if they have an abortion. We got the shoot
it took me a week to get it Boyko was good and orthodox, I gleefully included
the scene in the programme but it was only seen in Vladivostok. After the
programme had gone out all across the country I was told not to touch Mr Boyko,
since he was 'an extremely repulsive figure'. A friend of mine who worked in
regional news described events connected with him in his personal blog rather
differently, mentioning the governor, I think, and was fired from his job for it.
Journalist E
Place of work: 'Rossiiskaya Gazeta' [official state newspaper]
In my department things are not as bad as it may seem. There is censorship, but
it is not direct. We try not to write about subjects on which our opinion differs
from the official one. If it is politics, then it's all more difficult. They
don't attack the 'official' opposition, but they don't say nice things about it
either. And the 'unofficial' opposition is simply not mentioned. Anything
unflattering to the government is avoided.
We do officially commissioned work I don't know if they pay us for it or not.
For example, we ran a hatchet job on Chirkunov, the Governor of Perm. You can
tell by the names of the writers: they are names you won't find anywhere else in
the paper. Also, these articles are set differently, and don't usually go on the
Naturally I don't approve of that. I try to bring it up when I'm talking to my
editor. You could say I'm trying to change the system from within. But I'm not
making much headway, they won't change anything. And that's sad.
Sometimes my colleagues manage to push something through. For example we wrote
about the anti-government protests in Belorus in a way that suggested support for
the opposition. Not in so many words, of course. But we only asked people in the
opposition for comments and we only covered their actions. And we also had a
reaction to the events from a Russian opposition figure.
The staff on the paper are quite a specific group they are mainly older people
who I think are disappointed with life. Only a minority are United Russia
supporters. At the same time they don't believe in the opposition. Mostly they
are completely indifferent; they just don't care about what is happening in the
I often think about moving on somewhere else. But on a professional level I've
got a lot out of working here, and there's room for me to go on developing my
Journalist F
Place of work: Channel One [state-owned TV]
I would rather not talk about censorship on my TV channel. Political news is
looked after by a separate group of people who don't talk to anyone else.
Katerina Ovsyannikova
Current position: producer at "Vremya", Channel One news programme
I've been workig on 'Vremya' for a month and a half, and before that I was editor
of a programme called 'Pust' Govoryat'(Let Them Speak).
If my views differed from the channel's politics, I wouldn't be working here.
When I started working on 'Pust' Govoryat' I knew that we would be covering
highly sensitive social issues, embarrassing things that people prefer not to
talk about. But people watch the programme, so it's obviously needed. When people
came on work placement, the first question we would ask was 'Have you watched the
programme?' And many of them hadn't.
On 'Pust' Govoryat' they teach you to react as a human being, and not just as a
journalist. You need to remember that the subjects of the programme are real
people and that their lives will continue after the show. Appearing on television
is something unimaginable for them. It's important to them what people will think
of them and how they will advise them. The programme changes their entire lives!
Many journalist colleagues working in the tabloid press push the idea that TV is
in the business of degrading people and afterwards their lives are ruined. It's
not true. I'm still in touch with a lot of people who were on the show; they're
on my social networking pages. People thank us for what we've done for them.
There is censorship, but it's the same on every channel. Our job as journalists
is to keep ourselves informed about everything and select whatever is really
important. Filtering what goes on air isn't my responsibility. I suggest a story
to my bosses, and if it is relevant and interesting they send a team out to cover
it and it goes on air. Maternity benefit, for example. If people are having too
few children, they receive a sum of money when they have a second child. That's
very important, especially out in the regions.
Journalist G
Place of work: Russia Today [state-funded English-language TV channel]
The TV station was set up as a counterweight to foreign media companies who were
slating everything happened in Russia. They said that we were a bunch of w****ers
and that bears wandered through Red Square. Our channel gives the world the truth
about Russia, and what we think about what is happening in the world. And while
doing that of course we stress our government's official line.
Russia Today is actually more independent than Channel One. We have a balanced
approach to covering the news. We report on the activities of the opposition -
that goes without saying, but it's a question of scale. We don't bother covering
Strategy-31 demos, partly because they're not news any more, but also because
there are so few people there. If the revolution comes, we'll obviously report
it. We have a joke: how many Russians have to die for us to report on it? Three.
How many Europeans? 20 to 40. How many Arabs? 40 to 60. How many Chinese? Forty
at least.
We're very conscientious about selecting our facts: if RIA Novosti publishes the
information that the quantity of grain harvested this year was 300 tonnes, and
some brain damaged idiot from the opposition says it was 100 tonnes, we naturally
use the RIA Novosti figure.
Information is the best propaganda. If you churn out propaganda like a dimwit,
nobody will believe you. Our job is to give the other side of the story, the
facts that the BBC and CNN keep quiet about. For example, when thousands of
people in New York occupied Wall Street, under CNN's nose, they were ignored,
because their TV stations are all owned by the 1%, the corporations the
demonstrators were protesting against. Here, thank God, our government is elected
by the people. There is no actual proof of irregularities during our recent
elections. I think there was a bit of rigging, but not much: United Russia
certainly got a straight 40%. In any case, elections are a game for the big
shots, and we'll never get to the bottom of it all.
You often have to make compromises. I, for instance, like to slag off the west,
but the editors think I sometimes go too far. And don't give my name: I'm due for
promotion and the bosses might not like me shooting my mouth off.
Anastasia Kashevarova
Current position: political editor at 'Life News' [published by Aram Gabrelian,
known for his good relations with Kremlin]
I'm twenty three years old. I got into journalism at the age of 17 thanks to
Zhirinovsky I was working on his staff at the time. I've been working at Life
for three years. We have a clearly-defined editorial position we don't write
anything bad about the president, prime minister or patriarch. That is what
affects the wellbeing of the country. A journalist might not know everything, and
his or her criticism of the government could lead to conflict or even to war.
Constant negative coverage might end up undermining our head of state's authority
on the world stage and with him our country's authority.
I don't understand why people criticise the president they elected themselves. I
have voted for Putin and Medvedev at every election. Even if there is some vote
rigging at elections, it's not more than 10%. I speak as someone who knows
something about politics. There's no one who could compete with Putin. Navalny,
who writes crap on the internet no one gives a damn about him.
The only thing I don't agree with completely was Kudrin being sacked. He is a
real man and couldn't help voicing his opinion. But he shouldn't have criticised
Putin's policies. It's a pity he's gone. They could have come to some agreement,
but they didn't. That's their business.
When I'm appointing new staff for my department, it's important that they have
their own opinions. But if they want to criticise Putin and Medvedev, then they
need to have their facts straight.
If I get hold of documents claiming that Putin has committed some crime, I would
want to check on them and where they came from. I discuss every document with
Aram Gabrelyanov, our editor in chief, and we decide whether or not to publish
it. I think it's better to save millions of lives than a few hundred. I mean we
wouldn't publish something or somehow try to rewrite it so it sounds better...
We're patriots, not hacks for hire.
For me being a journalist means trying to make the world better, telling the
truth, but without damaging Russia's interests. Truthfulness comes second for me,
after our country's security. And the other thing that motivates me is my ego as
a journalist you can change history.
Grigory Okhotin
Former position: freelance editor of the foreign press translation service of RIA
Novosti [state-owned news agency]
I resigned after I got instructions not to translate anything that was critical
of Putin and Medvedev. Or if we did translate it, not to lead with it. I don't
have any contact with Ria Novosti any more. I only saw their press release that
said they were going to take me to court to defend their reputation. My lawyers
at the Glasnost Defence Foundation have advised me to say that I had every right
to express my opinion that there is censorship at the Agency. Let me stress that
- it's my opinion.
I'm not worried about my own reputation, let them call me a scandalmonger if they
like. But at least I can look them in the eye.
When I went to work at RIA, I assumed of course that there would be censorship.
But during the ten months I worked there was nothing. Literally the day before I
resigned I was boasting to friends who work in the liberal media that I didn't
have any problems. I spoke too soon.
I believe there is no such thing as censorship. When I've spoken to other
journalists I know I've been really struck by how afraid they are. I can
understand older people, people with children; they've got something to lose. But
when you're in your twenties and living in Moscow, you can find work in three
days. You don't have to work as a journalist.
[return to Contents]
Russia Profile
December 14, 2011
Two Nations, One Vision
The Internet Is Poised to Overtake Television as the Key Information Supplier.
By Dan Peleschuk
An incredible thing happened recently. Just days after Prime Minister Vladimir
Putin appeared before a convention of domestic and foreign Russia watchers in
mid-November, where he faced a slew of tough questions about Russia's decaying
political system and its future, the country hit a major benchmark. Russia now
ranks as the most Internet-connected country in Europe, with roughly 50 million
users in September, according to a recent report by the Internet research company
ComScore. Russia's large population undoubtedly plays a key rolekeeping in mind,
especially, that Germany, the runner-up, posted nearly the same amount of users
but has just over half the population. Still, it sends a clear message: Russia is
steaming ahead in the age of the Internet. But where does this leave television,
the previously tried-and-true information source for most Russians?
Throughout the past few years, the increasing ubiquity of the Internet in
Russiawhose citizens have traditionally relied mainly on television for their
informationhas led observers to speak about two divergent media audiences: the
"television nation" and the "Internet nation." The latter is comprised of those
born in the twilight years of the Soviet Union, or even after its collapse, who
almost exclusively turn to the Internet for everything from news to
entertainment; they are the young, the liberal, the forward-thinking. The former,
meanwhile, denotes the older and more conservative Russiansthose, perhaps, who
are set in their ways, without access to or a desire for a greater, more critical
flow of information than that which state-run television provides them.
Yet this might be a simplification. What's happening instead is a more complex
conflict that manifests itself through many divides: cultural, generational,
geographic, and economic, among others. Nevertheless, as the Soviet generation
continues to die off and the post-Soviet generation comes of age, observers say,
the Internet may increasingly take over television's role as the key provider of
information. The great divide, meanwhile, remains a debated issue among experts.
The Old Days
Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, television played a key role as a
purveyor of state-sponsored propaganda and light entertainment. It was meant not
only as a tool to keep the masses conforming to the party line, but also to bring
them together. Just as neighborhoods and apartment blocks were engineered to form
social units, the four available channels on state televisionmost citizens really
had access to only twohelped foster a sense of social solidarity among the
people, nearly all of whom watched television on a daily basis. Everyone watched
the same news broadcasts, the same shows. They were all on the same page.
But as the Soviet regime crumbled and perestroika gave way to the eventual
collapse, television served an entirely new purpose. As the chaotic
socio-political environment of the Boris Yeltsin-era took shape, television was
transformed into a freer, largely uncensored arena where, for once, real issues
were discussed, Western ideals were imported and political parties and their
patrons clashed head-to-head. According to media researcher Ekaterina Kratasiuk,
Russian television of the 1990s was "an ideal model" of broadcasting, a result of
a newfound freedom in a formerly dull and restricted landscape. "In the 1990s it
was incredible," said Kratasiuk, an associate professor at the Russian State
University for the Humanities. "All this free, uncensored broadcasting in real
time from party assembliespeople were so interested in it, they were watching it
like a soap opera."
But the brief flirtation with free media soon ended. The onset of political
consolidation and heavy-handed rule under then-President Vladimir Putin forced
opposition voices into a corner and, eventually, off the stage. Television became
the most visible victim, as the forced takeover in 2000 of NTVprominent in the
1990s for its critical and insightful reportingmarked the beginning of
widespread, Kremlin-friendly broadcasting.
Turning It On
Today, that trend continues. Most of the frequently watched channels are
state-owned, and not only stray from covering unpleasant news, according to
critics, but serve as mouthpieces for the regime. In an era of increasing
globalization, and the growing demand for the interconnectivity that comes with
it, television is being left behind. Coupled with Russia's continued tight-fisted
rule and the rising level of discontent with the authorities, many have
increasingly begun to tune out. Those who haven't remain, in a way, stuck in the
According to the latest statistics from the Levada Center, while the percentage
of television viewers still hovers around 84 percent, only 17 percent of viewers
agree that Russian television provides a complete and objective picture of the
world today, while 63 percent believe censorship plays a role in broadcasting.
Taken together, these numbers suggest that many Russians have either lost faith
in television as a bona fide information source or tacitly accept its diminishing
roleor both. Kratasiuk claims that the bulk of today's television audience
consists of older viewers "addicted" to television because it represents a
comfort zone amidst a time of growing uncertainty and change. "They don't watch
news, or any programs that could be informativethey watch Soviet films. It's the
main part of their addiction," said Kratasiuk. "And of course, when they watch
these films, they feel nostalgia and start to think how much better it was in the
Soviet Union, and all these emotions are connected with television." Meanwhile,
she said, younger audiences are becoming more disenchanted for the same
reasonnamely because they associate modern television with "Soviet" type of
media, increasingly out of tune with today's realities.
Others point to the decreasing utility of television as an information source for
younger generations. Prominent media critic Ivan Zassoursky said that today's
current landscape, in which there's a "closed" traditional media systemwhich
includes state television and the state-sanctioned pressand the "open" Internet,
young audiences are automatically attracted to the latter, where they can enjoy a
larger and freer flow of information that can't be accessed via television.
Besides, he said, "Watching television has become unfashionable."
The New Way
The Internet in Russia today, it might be said, is the television of the 1990s.
It plays host to political debates, critical analysis, and even revolutionary
entertainment. Particularly in the past few years, countless new Web sites have
sprung up to fill the information void left by television, and while some of
these projects are news outlets, others are focused on opinion and commentary.
All, however, enjoy the virtually unlimited freedom that state television and a
largely muzzled press cannot provide. "While in the mainstream media, many issues
are downplayed or reserved for the second part of a newscast, the contrasting
view of priorities [on the Internet] sets the stage for drama," Zassoursky said.
"When the Internet audience refuses to accept the agenda set by politicians, it
refuses to take part in the discourse of mainstream media and develops a
protestant discourse on its own."
And the leaders for these new media projects are members of the very generation
they attempt to target: young, well-educated and intellectually curious Russians.
Take Andre Gorianov, for example. Smart, tech-savvy and self-assured, he is the
editor in chief of Slon.ru, a popular Russian Web site that provides commentary
on politics, business, and economics. Launched in 2009, Slon.ru is a novelty in
many ways. The Web site is consciously modeled after a handful of Western online
niche publications, such as Business Insider and TechCrunch, and doesn't just
report the news, but offers a unique take on stories that have already broken.
Slon.ru also attempts to diversify its content delivery for the curiousyet
time-strappedreader. Gorianov emphasized how each piece, purposely called an
"item," can take on any form: a story, commentary, graphic, quotation, or more.
"I don't think anyone in Russia is doing what we're doing," he said.
What's more, Slon.ru, with its estimated 1.1 million visitors per month, attracts
the exact same audience discouraged by television programming and the general
dearth of information available through traditional media. "We get people who are
quick-thinking, who have a great career, who are pretty intellectually brilliant,
who don't want to leave Russiabut want to change something hereand who are
excited about what they are doing," Gorianov said.
Others are thinking along the same lines, but with different approaches. Another
example is Chastniy Korrespondent, an online publication founded by Zassoursky
that bridges the gap between news and opinion. Launched in 2008, ChasKor is based
on the increasingly popular premise of user-generated contentbut "on a triple 'A'
level," according to Zassourskyand has grown through the past few years to
include thoughtful commentary on current events in Russia, the world, society,
business and others. "If you have something really clever to say, something that
you really want to convey to people who can really read it and understand what
you mean, then ChasKor might be the best way to say it," Zassoursky said.
Perhaps the most telling detail is the audience that ChasKor has amassed. While
Zassoursky initially commissioned articles from writers for-hire, he ended the
practice in 2010; since then, he said, he has attracted a greater number of
high-quality submissionsnot necessarily only from journalists, but from curious
readers. He points to this fact as a testimony to the Internet's growing
capability to satisfy younger audiences in a way television cannot. "It has
become a sort of convergence point for Russian intellectuals," Zassoursky said,
"and by doing so it has finally activated this media model."
Location Matters
But still, the growing influence of the Internet is not all-encompassing. In a
country where divides of all colors and stripessocial, political, economic,
geographicare ever present, the divergence between television and the Internet is
no exception.
Experts point to several main points, the most prominent of which is the
disparity between urban and rural populations. While in Russia's urban
centerssuch as Moscow, St. Petersburg and Novosibirsk, among othersInternet
connectivity remains almost universal, this is not the case in the rest of
Russia. Fixed-line Internet, Kratasiuk said, is taken for granted in these larger
centers, while it is a luxury in countless small cities, towns and villages
across the country. In many cases, using mobile devices is the only way to gain
access to the Internet in rural areas, and analysts estimate that only about 30
percent of Russians there are connected.
Yet not all indicators point to the negative. In some cases, this urban-rural
divide is helping to bridge the information gap. According to Kratasiuk, rural
populations are beginning to see Internet use as compensation for the fact that
they lie outside the major urban centers of information, which, in turn, makes
them more adventurous. "When people start to connect to the Internet, they use it
very widely, and they are much more inventive in their use," said Kratasiuk.
"They are so interested that they not only go to the regular social networks
every day, but they really start to use this instrument in every possible way."
As for the generational divide, however, other experts remain less positive. Vlad
Strukov, a media expert at the University of Leeds, said that enough time has
elapsed in post-Soviet Russia that several generations have come of age, each
with its own ideology and outlook on life. While shortly after the collapse of
the Soviet Union it was possible to view Russia as composed of two different
generations, he said, today it is much more complex. "I define the Russian media
system and its social components as divided not in the sense of lifestyles and
brands as we have in the UK and elsewhere, but divided in terms of values,
experience and view on what Russia is really about," said Strukov.
[return to Contents]
December 13, 2011
Duma Elections: Expert Analysis
Dmitri Trenin, Maria Lipman, Alexey Malashenko, Sergei Aleksashenko, Natalia
Bubnova, Nikolay Petrov Compilation of commentaries
Tens of thousands of Russians took to the street last weekend in protest over
voter fraud allegations in the country's parliamentary elections. Carnegie Moscow
Center experts analyze the election results and what the public response might
mean for the country's future.
Dmitri Trenin
Following the Duma elections on December 4, 2011, the political situation in
Russia has changed. The current Russian political system, which I call
authoritarianism with the consent of the governed, can run only as long as that
consent is granted. This was the case in 2007 and in 2003. This was not the case
in 2011. Even according to the official count, which is disputed by the
opposition, the ruling party received just under one-half of the votes. Even
though Vladimir Putin remains the country's most popular politician by far, his
Teflon coating has visibly cracked.
The main reason for this is that the Russian people have stirred. Having spent
the last decade focused on their private lives, they are beginning to turn to the
public sphere. Moscow and St. Petersburg have seen the biggest rallies since the
1990s. With many people more affluent than ever before in the entire history of
Russia, the level of popular tolerance has changed. The authorities'
traditionally cavalier behavior, acceptable even a few years ago, is suddenly
inviting resistance. The Putin-Medvedev position swap, announced in September,
was taken as an insult. Dmitry Medvedev has since been dismissed as irrelevant;
Putin was booed.
This change of mood does not mean regime changeyet. What it promises is livelier
politics. Parties and politicians will be judged according to how they manage to
represent and articulate various popular demands, rather than on the basis of
their proximity to the Kremlin's masters of the game. These demands are very
diverse and are sometimes hard to reconcile. Encompassing socialists, liberals,
and conservatives; big, medium, and small businesses; major urban centers, small
towns, and the countryside; ethnic Russian and non-Russian regions, including the
very special case of the North Caucasus: Russia's sociopolitical spectrum is as
wide as the country itself.
The new situation is open-ended. Mr. Putin faces a choice between "hard" and
"soft" lines. Either will be difficult; he has never ruled without overwhelming
support or at least acquiescence, which is now slipping. He may try both:
clamping down on some people, while co-opting others. A lot will depend on how
these otherscommunists, nationalists, populists, and liberalsadjust to the new
situation and develop their strategies and tactics. At best, the outcome may lead
to a new Russian republic; at worst, Russia itself may become a mess.
The outside world has been watching Russia's stirrings with a mixture of
amazement, hope, and fear. There is a broad recognition that the Russian
political system is up to the Russians themselves to fix or replace. There has
also been criticism of the Russian government, for example, from U.S. Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton, and there have been expressions of solidarity with the
opposition. This reaction is immediately picked up by the Kremlin and used as
evidence that Russia's opposition is, in fact, a tool of the West. When two
electoral campaigns coincide, they can resonate quite powerfully.
Maria Lipman
In Russia, the vote of defiance was followed by defiance in the streets. And
though the protesters' cause is vague, a new constituency of young and angry
Russians has come forward with a political message: United Russia, the
leadership, and Vladimir Putin are not wanted.
Egregious abuse of government and police authority, social injustice,
lawlessness, and abominable corruption bred discontent over the past years, but
this discontent remained a subject of nongovernment media coverage and a matter
of angry exchange on the Web.
In the past, political action failed to attract people, and political rallies
brought together mere hundreds. The government drew on less advanced or
critically minded constituencies and bought their loyalties with generous social
spending. The virtual political monopoly established by Putin and his elites
enabled them to ignore media exposures of wrongdoing or voices of criticism and
contempt. In the meantime, contempt ran deeper and broader than the government
was ready to accept. United Russia, the chief pro-Kremlin force in the Russian
legislature, was commonly branded "a party of swindlers and thieves"a nickname
launched by Alexey Navalny, a popular blogger and anticorruption activist. Today,
Navalny is easily the single most popular figure among the informal opposition.
The political scene had been thoroughly cleansed from any unwelcome forces or
figures, public participation was all but fully eliminated, and the government
and the people lived under an informal, nonintrusive pact, or a divorce contract:
the government made the decisions and the people minded their own business. As
long as the government would not intrude, people accepted that they did not make
a difference and engaged in their pursuits.
The election brought the "divorcees"the state and the peopleback closer together,
forcing a vote of allegiance to the government that many had come to detest.
The trading-places trick between Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev roughly two
months before the election further deepened the existing disgruntlement. We
decided on this many years ago, Medvedev said, hardly trying even to pretend that
the people had a say in how their leadership is chosen. Putin's comebackeven if
expectedcame as a shock to many among the already discontented constituencies.
"Oh no, not for another twelve years," was a broadly shared perception.
The government, aware of the quickly souring mood, rushed to get out the desired
vote. In an attempt to deliver a higher turnout, administrators of various levels
opted for shamelessly unlawful tricks. Activists and election observers were
harassed and popular websites that joined the effort to expose the election fraud
were cut off by cyber attacks that incapacitated them for the length of the
election day.
Combined, this generated unprecedented antigovernment mobilization. Suddenly, the
generally depoliticized younger constituencies rushed to take part in the
votewith the sole purpose of undermining the party of swindlers and thieves.
Anything wenttaking the ballot home, tearing it up right there at the precinct,
writing something funny or insulting on it as a way of making it invalid, or
voting for any party included on the ballot regardless of what it stood for. In
an amazing outbreak of civic responsibility, throngs of citizens volunteered to
be election observers; many others reported instances of fraud and distributed
this information on the Internet.
United Russia gained about 50 percent, down from 64 back in 2007. Numerous
allegations of fraud strongly suggest that the real drop is more significantsome
rough estimates have it at below 40 percent.
The protest rallies held during the days following the election in Moscow and
other cities condemned the election fraud, but unlike the Orange revolution in
Ukraine, Russian protesters' message is vague. In Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko was
the real victor, and the crowdmuch larger than in Russiawanted him for president.
In Russia, the protesters know who stole the election, but they do not have a
party that they want or like. All they have is a bunch of informal leaders, with
their marginal parties effectively barred by the Kremlin from the political
field. None of these leaders has nationwide awareness, let alone support.
The postelection protest movement has gained momentumtens of thousands took part
in the rally in Moscow on Saturday, December 10. But Russia is not Tunisia or
Egypt: it's a vast country, large parts of it are forbiddingly cold in December;
there's still too little cohesion; and the disillusionment of the previous
upheaval twenty years ago when the Soviet Union collapsed is still vivid.
But the December 2011 elections signal a shift: Putin's charisma is dispelled,
his power is weakened, and his political monopoly will continue to wane. Even
more significant has been a shift in the public mindset: a senseespecially among
the younger, previously apolitical "online" constituenciesthat politics matter
and a desire to make a difference.
Alexey Malashenko
What is the postelection suspense all about?
First, it convincingly showed the Russian authorities that people are fed up with
them and do not expect anything good from them.
Second, it showed a shift in public protest from the passive to the semi-passive
or semi-active stage. Although, despite the widespread public indignation, only a
portion of 1 percent of disgruntled voters actually took to the streets.
Third, this election was seen by many as just an interim event, a kind of run-up
to the more significant presidential election in March 2012. That election could
become the real "hour X" for the authorities. In the coming spring, the ruling
class will launch into battle its heaviest and final reserve: Vladimir Putin
himself. If Putin losesthat is, if he demonstrates a lack of popularitythis would
destabilize the elite and increase tension between the federal center and the
regions, collapsing the already unsteady power vertical.
If Putin wins, if he confirms his authority and the hopes placed on him, the
ruling class will breathe a sigh of reliefand will not want to work for the
country's good, will not want to change anything further, and will not want to
change themselves, postponing all innovation and modernization for better days to
come. Putin's success would give them another respite and, from their point of
view, show that political reform is unnecessary (for the elite). It is also
impossible to count on the "old-new" president to launch innovations to
restructure the country's politics and economy. He is a politician already set in
his ways and given to ever greater self-assurance that at times takes on shades
of narcissism.
In this scenario, the state would sink even deeper into general stagnation and
continue its road to nowhere.
Fourth, this explains the tactic chosen by the ruling class, above all Putin's
direct entourage, of assuring their man a genuinely high rating, lowering the
protest mood among the public, and making people forget United Russia's failures
in the parliamentary election. This will require taking some action and some
maneuvers, which is precisely what Putin's entourage has started doing.
For example, it will be necessary to separate the unsuccessful United Russia
party from its leader. The idea that Putin has some supposed program of his own
(Where is it?) that differs somehow from that of United Russia has already been
voiced. Some say that United Russia needs to be completely reformatted, though
time has already run out for this. We thus cannot rule out the possibility that
Putin might preside over the creation of some new and more attractive
Talk has begun again of decentralizing more power and giving it to the regions.
Concrete results in the fight against corruption will obviously be announced,
along with the names of the main wrongdoers. The new cabinet will clearly not
include politicians the public dislikes, and people from opposition parties
within the system might even be invited to join it. Putin's rhetoric will be
adjusted to take voters' moods into account, making a more leftist turn and
probably gaining an air of nationalism, too.
Finally, the Kremlin spin doctors will have to come up with a couple of original
and clever tricks to improve their client's image; seeing him driving a Zhiguli
and combine harvesters or retrieving amphora from the seabed no longer draws
anything but laughs.
Along with their attempts to make the public like them, the authorities will be
tougher in crushing any displays of opposition of the kind that have been
bringing not hundreds but thousands of people into the streets in the
postelection days. A tightening of controls in the information sphere is also
At the same time, the authorities will step up their efforts to inculcate in
people the image of Russia as a besieged fortress facing external threats that
can be defended only if everyone consolidates firmly and without question around
the government. This tendency was already emerging just before the election.
The high protest momentum will probably fade by the presidential election.
Moscow's Triumfalnaya, Manezhnaya, and Pushkinskaya Squares will not become
Cairo's Maidan Tahrir or Kiev's plain old "maidan." At the very least, keeping up
the momentum would require effective organizational structures that do not exist
at the moment. The opposition outside the system is weak, and as for the
communists, or even more the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, they obviously
prefer the parliamentary "bird in the hand" to the uncertain and risky "two in
the bush." A Just Russia is also unlikely to take to the streets.
No one doubts that Putin will become president again. But people are saying now
that he will not win outright and that he, and all of us, will have to face a
second round. Will Putin and his colleagues allow this to happen? That is the
next bit of suspense.
Sergei Aleksashenko
Though the RTS Index fell the day after elections, I'm not ready to overestimate
the influence of a) political developments on stock markethistorically it is
rather weakor b) the stock market on the overall economic situationthe connection
in Russia between the stock indexes and the economy is also very weak. I wouldn't
pay too much attention to Duma elections, as in modern Russia, parliament is not
the organ that determines economic policy. Policy is determined by the
government, and we don't know yet what the new government will look like.
As a result of the Duma elections, nothing should change, in principle. The Duma
is not going to be a counterbalance to the government even to a minor degree. If
something does generate shifts in economic policy, it will be the composition of
the government, while the new government may emerge next week, or in March, or
even in May.
The crucial economic issue in Russia today is the poor investment climateand that
does not depend on the allocation of seats in the Duma. Everyone understands that
the majority will belong to United Russia while the exact number of that majority
is not important. The most important committees within the Duma will remain under
the control of United Russia, and the party is going to retain a monopoly on
power. It will not look for any changes in economic policy unless it receives the
signal from the Kremlin.
Dmitri Trenin
For the first time in many years, investors have to factor in a significant
amount of political risk. At this point, many people think the protests will be
contained, and short-lived, but I wouldn't bank on that. There will be ebbs and
flows, to be sure. However, while a "post-Putin Russia" has not been seen yet,
and a "liberal Russia" remains a pipe dream, there will be no return to the
relatively docile pre-December 4 situation.
In the run-up to the elections, Vladimir Putin will seek all the support he can
marshal and will turn populist. Reforms, if he had them in mind, are likely to be
postponed still further. There will be more government spending, in the short
term, to curry favor with various sectors of the electorate. To get the funding
for that, oil and gas sector companies, and metals producers, will probably be
taxed more heavily. On the other hand, price hikes in electricity, communal
services, and so on are likely to be reduced.
That said, in view of the sudden uncertainty, I would expect some of those that
already have investments in Russia to look for the exit, and those on the way in
to pause.
Natalia Bubnova
It is still too early to say what the real results of the voting actually were.
The copies of the voting protocols that the observers from parties received are
still being calculated and the objective results are expected to become known
this week. What is clear, however, is that the voting was manipulated on a
massive scale and that the results can be considered a failure by United Russia.
It will not be a defeat in a sense of Vladimir Putin losing power, but definitely
in the sense that the ruling party, despite the manipulations, was not able to
win even half of the votes.
According to experts' estimates, the undistorted results of the elections are as
follows: from 24 to 30 percent for United Russia; from 5 to 12 percent for
Yabloko; around 14 percent for A Just Russia; and 24 to 25 percent for the
Communist Party. They state that each of the "alternative" parties received
several percentage points less than they would have if the election had been
conducted fairly.
Experts also note that there might have been more manipulation with regard to
Yabloko, the only of the above-mentioned parties of the "non-system
opposition"that is, not currently in the Duma or in any way associated with
current authorities (Yabloko also used to be called the party of intelligensia).
The authorities did not want Yabloko to get even 5 percent because that would
have allowed the party's leader, Grigory Yavlinsky, to run for the presidency
without collecting the 2 million signatures that he will now need to appear on
the ballot (his party received just over 3 percent of the votes according to the
official tally). It is a pity though that many, especially young supporters of
Yabloko connected through social networks, decided to follow the call of the
prominent blogger and anticorruption activist Alexey Navalny to vote for any
party but United Russia and refrained from voting for Yabloko for fear that their
vote would be lost or "recalculated" in favor of the winners.
Although it is also too early to say whether the scope of manipulations during
this election was higher than during previous ones, there are indications that
the people's impression that this was indeed the case is rooted in reality. An
unprecedented number of absentee ballots, exceeding 2.6 million, had been
distributed, which were used by ruling party activists to vote several times on
one ballot. A member of the Central Election Committee's supervision group for
the use of the country's automatic voting system, Kirill Serdyukov, refused to
sign the resolution confirming that the elections took place according to the law
because he found missing the accompanying information center's documentation. It
goes on and on. The whole of Russia's social media is full of personal accounts,
videos, and photographed documents attesting to fraud. So the information on vast
manipulations was not only due to the fact that observers were better
preparedwhich they wereor that people had less tolerance to rigging and more
technologies to spread information about it than during previous elections.
Some say that the authorities' decision not to "stuff" the votes in favor of the
United Russia party to an even greater degree might indicate their interest in
having the responsibility shared when making future unpopular decisions under
conditions of economic hardship. More likely, however, is that the authorities
did not dare inflate United Russia's figures even higher because, according to
common perceptions, a more than 1012 percent rate of falsification would make it
harder to legitimize the elections (although modern mathematical modelbased
methods make it possible to spot even minor distortions). Besides, they may have
figured that by now all the "constitutional" lawsthat is, the most important
ones, such as the law on the national emblem and hymn, or the extension of
presidential and parliamentary termsrequiring the approval of the constitutional
majority, 301 voteshave already been adopted. They will thus make do with a
simple majority of 238, which they have as a result of the elections (the
majority being 226 and above).
What will come out of the unfair elections and the public indignation remains to
be seen. There will be no revolution. Nor do we need one. Yet the public's
activity, the lines to the voting stations, and the public outcry against the
unfairness of the vote count are a step in the right direction, marking the
nascence of a civil society.
Nikolay Petrov
The December 4 elections and subsequent protests by Russian citizens have
fundamentally changed the political situation in Russia and the outlook for its
further development. The political system built by Vladimir Putin has started to
burst at the seams even before the government proceeds with unavoidable and
unpopular socioeconomic reforms. The political initiative has slipped out of
Putin's hands, and he has found himself in a defensive position. He will still
likely be able to win the presidency in the March 2012 election, but his power is
diminishing and it is not likely that he will be able to keep it until the end of
the next term.
I wouldn't deem this last election dirtier but instead more scandalous than the
one before it. The difference is in the sharply increased activity of the
citizenry and the technical ease with which election violations were documented
and widely disseminated, combined with the weakening of administrative resources
stemming from the changing of governors and a decline in respect for the
government at all levels. The authorities, it seems, conducted themselves
normally, and even in a somewhat more reserved way than usual. However, citizens,
including regular voters and low-level managers, were much more active than
during past elections, resisting the pressure of their bosses and some
representatives of the election commissions. It looks as though the social
contractthe noninterference of citizens in politics in exchange for the
noninterference of authorities in the citizens' lives and the continued
improvement of living standardsis disappearing. A generation after the explosion
of civil activity witnessed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new surge has
The new Duma will significantly differ from the previous one, not only because of
a small alteration in the distribution of seats between the four
Kremlin-controlled parties (the absolute majority retained by United Russia seems
quite enough to exercise exclusive control over the lower house), but more so
because the Duma will now unavoidably become a real forum for public policy. The
fundamentally new situation is due to a downward trend for United Russia along
with the rise of the remaining three parties. While United Russia will conduct
itself more carefully, its competitors will behave more aggressively. The
proposal regarding the allocation of committee chairmanships, according to which
the opposition parties should receive half of the seats, can be considered as an
initial indicator of this. It appears that United Russia's Boris Gryzlov will not
be able to handle the speakership of such a Duma.
It is also difficult now to imagine the appointment of Dmitry Medvedev to head
the government, as was announced in September. This role requires an effective
manager, a real, not a formal figure, and Putin is not likely to want to play
tandem-2 as a president.
The Duma elections were, as a result of a protest vote against the party in
power, effectively a no-confidence vote. Its three junior partners in the lower
house of parliament increased their presence, and because only three months
remain before the presidential election, all party leaders of the "big four" have
been placed in a difficult position. As in a Spanish Enserrorunning of the
bullsthe party leaders should start running quickly so as not to be trampled.
They will be hurried by the public mood, as well as by interparty competition.
Each party, especially A Just Russia, received a credit of trust, which could
quickly disappear if it does not confirm its opposition stance.
The events of early December have significantly changed the presidential election
paradigm. On the one hand, in accordance with existing legislation, only
candidates of the four parties represented in the Duma may take part in the
presidential election without collecting signatures, plus the political giants
and fortunate ones who are lucky enough to collect 2 million signatures and
convince the Central Election Commission of their authenticity. That seemingly
implies that, besides the already nominated Vladimir Putin, Sergei Mironov,
Gennady Zyuganov, and Vladimir Zhirinovsky, only perhaps Grigory Yavlinsky could
take part in the election, if only because the Kremlin is interested in his
participation for the purpose of improving the elections' image. On the other
hand, the sharp postelection reduction in the Kremlin's political resources will
make it difficult for the authorities to disallow the admittance of a popular
alternative candidate to the election, such as Alexey Navalny or Oksana
Vladimir Putin will also need to adjust his campaign model. It seems that he was
counting on getting back into the Kremlin based on the wave of joy caused by his
return, and consolidated by the accompanying gifts. Now he needs to break the new
negative trend, change the agenda, and mobilize the electorate. How can this be
Even if plans for a mobilization were to be prepared, there is simply not enough
time for the positive mobilization of voters. There is a possibility for the
negative mobilization of voters, but that would also require some preparation.
The West, which Putin has accused of being guilty of inciting postelection
unrest, will be impossible to use as a threat against which to consolidate
support around the national leader. What is left is nationalism. That is an
extremely dangerous card, which is very risky to use. Yet it seems that Putin
does not have much of a choice. For the first time in twelve years, he is in a
situation where he does not hold the initiative and is being forced to act under
the influence of external factors.
And lastlyif the authorities are luckythe wave of current protest will come to
naught, partly due to the cold and holidays. At the same time, returning to
previous, manipulated elections will not happen. Active public control and
transparency of elections will only increase, exacerbating the authorities'
already difficult situation.
With that, massive protests still do not evidence a movement in the direction of
democracy nor even a token of movement in that direction. In the tradition of
delegative democracy, citizens unhappy with the once-elected "czar" are ready to
replace him, but they are not ready to change the system as a whole, implement
everyday control over the government, or take part in it.
Reactive modernization, about which many have spoken, has begun. It did not begin
exactly when or exactly how it was expected to. The system has run into its first
serious political crisis, and in order to get through it, it must become more
complex and balanced.
[return to Contents]
Christian Science Monitor
December 13, 2011
My teacher, the billionaire? Russians see a teachable moment.
What values should shape the next generation? Russia's President Medvedev kicked
up a storm by suggesting that billionaires should share the secrets of their
success in the classroom.
By Fred Weir, Correspondent
Moscow - President Dmitry Medvedev may have thought he was just being helpful
when he suggested this fall that Russian schools could overcome their post-Soviet
lack of direction and inspire students by inviting billionaires into the
classroom to teach "stories of success."
But instead he touched off a long-simmering controversy within Russia's
educational community. Most specialists agree that the Soviet model, which viewed
schools as production lines for creating patriotic proletarians, is dead. But
there is little agreement on the values and methods that should go into shaping
citizens of the future.
"I will call for our big businessmen, basically people whose worth is more than
$1 billion, and say that they should all start to teach in schools," Mr. Medvedev
told a government meeting in September.
"I don't think school principals will object to this because, if we consider it
seriously, this is all a question of success in life. This can be different
things, of course, and is not just about money, but it's at least very
In Moscow, where city government has granted wide freedom to a few experimental
schools to try their own approaches, some like the idea of bringing a hard-nosed
bias for wealth creation into the classroom.
Skepticism toward the rich
But some are deeply skeptical, pointing to the murky origins of most big business
fortunes in Russia, where a handful of oligarchs got rich in the tumultuous 1990s
by leveraging political contacts to buy former Soviet assets on the cheap. Others
argue that the goal should be to avoid all ideological preconceptions.
"Everybody agrees that life should be better in the future, but there is
absolutely no consensus about the way forward in the schools or in society," says
Konstantin Ushakov, editor of School Principal, a Moscow-based professional
"We've thrown some money at the problem and there are computers in most schools
nowadays, but we have not yet begun any serious reform," he says. "There's
confusion from top to bottom. And I seriously doubt that this can be resolved by
orders from the top."
School 1306: independent thinking
School 1306, near the campus of Moscow University, is one school that's been
allowed to largely go its own way for about a decade now. The principal, Yelena
Sporysheva, dabbled at first with preparing students for a career in politics.
She says she's moved away from that, and now the main goal is to see that
children are given the tools to think independently, choose their own career
path, and be ready to integrate with the wider world.
"We've been working very closely with parents and evolving our concepts," Ms.
Sporysheva says. "This country is changing so fast. We used to think of a
generation as being 10 years. Now we think of it as five. I can't possibly
predict the nature of the world they will live in, so my duty is to give them the
broadest possible preparation, open them to other experiences and other cultures,
so they can find their own way."
She arranged for the school to be accredited with UNESCO, and for older students
to spend summers on exchanges and school-arranged excursions in Western Europe.
"I've been accused of preparing Russian students to leave this country," she
says. "But I think it should be their choice, and the best way to keep them here
is to make it a good place to live. You start with the school."
Students in School 1306's "young politicians club" are divided over the
president's offer to give them billionaire lessons, but say that if he means
guest speakers, they've had dozens visiting their school over the years,
including successful people from almost all walks of life, including businessmen,
scientists, artists, soldiers, and journalists.
"I'd be interested to hear what a billionaire has to say," says 10th-grader
Varvara Lobanova. "How did he find his own way? How does he define success?
That's got to be worthwhile. But everybody's different; each one has different
lessons to teach."
The president's idea is received more enthusiastically across town at Naslednik,
a private school funded by the Moscow government that specializes in bringing up
children to be business leaders. The school has a model stock exchange in which
pupils learn how to trade, and they study economics from the earliest grades.
"I basically support Medvedev's idea," says Lyubov Dykhanina, the principal.
"Perhaps it shouldn't just be billionaires, but also owners of mid-sized
businesses with years of experience. It would be best to get people who can give
our pupils an understanding of how to succeed in business amid tough and changing
circumstances [to do the teaching]."
But at the more traditional School 1148, where the curriculum is heavy on the
Soviet basics of reading, writing, math, and Russian literature, there are
serious doubts about letting super-rich teachers into the classroom.
'Moral standing' key
"Compared to Soviet times, if you take ideology out of the picture, I think the
values we teach are pretty much the same," says the principal, Yelena Kosarkhina.
"I remember being a happy child in those schools. We want to educate people with
high moral values, with an understanding of Russian culture and strong attachment
to family.
"I am really skeptical about this proposal to put billionaires at the front of a
class," she says. "Before I invite such a person into my school, I'd want to be
sure he was of high moral standing. Perhaps there are some rich people like that,
but I don't know of any."
The key takeaway from all this, says Mr. Ushakov, is that politicians should
probably stay out of educational policy.
"We have these experiments going on in Moscow, and they will show the way," he
"You can only change the system by giving freedom to the practitioners and
letting them unite theory with practice."
[return to Contents]
Russia Profile
December 15, 2011
Until Death Do Them Part
Russia's Demographic Crisis May Compel Russian Women to Bear Equal Economic
Burden with Men
By Tai Adelaja
As the gap in life expectancy between Russian men and women widens, cracks in the
state pension system appear to have been widening too. But one way the Russian
government could maneuver its way out of the demographic imbalance is to equalize
retirement ages for men and women, experts from the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) said on Monday. With the country's average
male life expectancy at just 60 years, Russian women may be called upon to wait
an extra five years to qualify for retirement, the RBC Daily reported.
In order to maintain the solvency of Russia's deficit-prone Pension Fund, OECD
experts suggested this week that the government should increase the average
retirement age, as well as public sector pension contributions, and put a limit
on the early retirement window. While the average life expectancy for Russian men
is 62 years or 14.5 years lower than in OECD countries Russian men presently
claim retirement benefits at the age of 60. By contrast, the average life
expectancy for women in Russia is 74.2 years (against 81.9 years for OECD
countries), while their retirement age is set at 55. That means that women in
Russia work for a shorter period of time and stay on pensions longer, according
to OECD experts. "It is a paradox that of the two identical population groups,
the one with higher life expectancy retires first," Angel Gurria, the OECD
secretary general, told a meeting at the Ministry of Economic Development on
Monday. A credible solution to the problem, she said, is "to eliminate gender
differentiation in the retirement age and adjust it for life expectancy."
Russian economists are lining behind the proposal. "It's a rational proposal,"
said Vladimir Nazarov, the co-head of Russia's 2020 Strategy at the Gaidar
Institute for Economic Policy. One should consider life expectancy at the time of
retirement, since this is what shows the duration of the pension period, Nazarov
said. Life expectancy after retirement for Russian women is 23 years, while it's
only three years for men, he said. "It should probably take about ten years to
equalize the pension ages for men and women to 60 years," Nazarov said. "One
cannot raise the retirement age for those who are already set to go on pension
because they are unlikely to be prepared for such drastic changes. It has to be
gradual, a few steps at a time."
Russia's negative demographic trends have not only reduced the number of
contributors to pension funds, they have forced the government to increase
subsidies to the Pension Fund. According to the government-approved 2020
Strategy, Russia is to raise pension ages for both men and women to 63 years by
2030. The plan involves a gradual increase of one or two months every year. If
the government follows through on such a plan and could successfully peg average
retirement age at 62 years, the number of pensioners would reach 30 million by
2025, compared to 36 million if it had been left at the current levels, OECD
experts said.
"Women tend to experience a decline in activity during their reproductive years,
but then they bounce up and are able and willing to undertake economic activity
at the same time that men tend to remain docile," Ovsei Shkaratan, a professor at
the Higher School of Economics, told RBC Daily. Such an opinion, the paper said,
reinforces the belief that women are in their prime or full bloom at 55, and
retirement at that age only prevents them from realizing their full potential.
"Pension age for women to date should be extended to 60 years, and there is no
reason to leave it at 55," Shkaratan said. "The current situation is
discriminatory because women retire five years earlier, and consequently, their
pensions are much smaller," Nazarov said.
Such arguments did not win over officials at the Ministry of Health and Social
Development, however. Adjusting the minimum period of pension contributions, they
said, would better fix the pension system than raising the age bracket. "In the
future, the minimum period of pension contributions could be set at 20 years for
women and 25 years for men," the press service of the ministry said. "Receiving
the maximum allowable pension should also depend on a 40-year minimum period of
service for women and 45 years for men." The officials believe that such a system
would allow a worker to retire at any time, as long as the size of his or her
pension is calculated on the basis of the length of service.
A report commissioned by the ministry last year concluded that even 30 years of
hard work would not guarantee a Russian employee a decent pension. Due to an
ineffective system of investment in pension savings, those who will retire in
2035 will be able to save up enough to pay off only 16 percent of an average
state pension ($60 per week at the moment), said the report, cited by Vedomosti
newspaper. The report also cites low salaries as another reason for pension
troubles, as more than 80 percent of those with state pension insurance spend all
their money on basic necessities. Currently, there are 7.5 million people
participating in certain pension programs, the report said, while the remaining
50 million, who cannot save up because of low salaries, risk ending up with a
pension of 25 to 30 percent of their salary provided by the state.
In addition to equalizing retirement ages for men and women, OECD experts want
the government to gradually reduce and subsequently cancel the possibility of
voluntary early retirement. "Most of those who take early retirement from service
do so not because of disability, but rather as an incentive for some meritorious
service," said Yulia Lezhnina, a lecturer in social and economic policies at the
Higher School of Economics. "Such changes must be gradual and spread over a
minimum of ten years to allow people to adjust and adapt."
[return to Contents]
Moscow Times
December 15, 2011
Commerce Chamber Sees Positive Changes
By Irina Filatova
The outcome of the parliamentary elections in Russia is expected to be beneficial
for domestic business because the new State Duma structure will provide a
democratic environment for discussing new legislative initiatives, Sergei
Katyrin, president of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said Wednesday.
"It's a new format of the Duma today, and it's a different format of discussions
and decision making," he told a news conference.
Although United Russia received the most votes at 49.3 percent, the weight of
other political parties in the decision-making process is expected to increase.
"This will provide a more democratic base for discussing bills," Katyrin said.
The business lobby group, which will get part of United Russia's seats in the new
State Duma as a member of the All-Russia People's Front, plans to push for a
number of legislative initiatives, including government support for small and
midsized businesses, providing tax breaks for entrepreneurs investing in
developing their businesses, and support for domestic exporters.
Although the country's recent trade balance figures are encouraging, the
government should focus on supporting domestic exporters, especially amid the
high uncertainty in Europe struggling to fight its sovereign debt crisis, Katyrin
Russia's trade surplus increased 21.8 percent in January to October from the
first 10 months of last year to reach $170.1 billion, with export and import
volumes amounting to $418.9 billion and $248.8 billion, respectively, the Federal
Customs Service said last week.
But Economic Development Minister Elvira Nabiullina said late last month that the
trade surplus increased 31 percent in the first 10 months to reach $164 billion.
Katyrin said concerns remain about the country's export structure, with natural
resources being the major driver of the growth.
"It's distressing. ... The share of machinery in our exports is meager," he said.
Natural resources and energy accounted for 73 percent of the country's exports in
January through October, according to the Federal Customs Service.
Given the dependence of the domestic economy on natural resources, Russia could
see a decline in overall export volumes next year if the economic situation in
the euro zone deteriorates, as Europe is a major consumer of Russia's oil and
gas, Katyrin said.
But he said the latest weather forecast for European countries encourage
optimism, with extremely cold winter expected in the region.
"Meteorologists are promising us a bright future, they forecast a super-cold
winter in Europe, and ... our gas producers are rubbing their hands," Katyrin
However, it's unclear whether these expectations will come true.
"There's not a single snowflake there so far. I was on a business trip recently,
the sun is shining there," Katyrin said jokingly.
[return to Contents]
Russia wants better cooperation with U.S. Putin
MOSCOW, December 15 (RIA Novosti)-Russia will continue cooperation with the
United States despite the perception Washington needs to do more to achieve real
consensus with its friends and allies, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on
"Sometimes I think that America does not need allies, it needs vassals. But we
want and we will develop cooperation with the United States, because I see that a
transformation is taking place inside the United States itself," Putin said
during a four-hour Q&A session on Thursday.
Russia, which opposes a monopolar world, is not going "to live as a country
surrounded by enemies," Putin said.
The premier accused the United States of imposing its political will on its
allies. He referred to the U.S. military campaign in Iraq in 2003 when the United
States attacked the country and then compelled its allies to join the operation.
"Is that alliance? Is that mutual decision-making? Alliance means discussion,
making a joint decision, outlining an agenda concerning common threats and ways
to tackle them," Putin said.
[return to Contents]
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
December 15, 2011
Is Iran about to be attacked? What shall Russia expect and do if it is?
Author: Sergei Konovalov
The latest geopolitical developments in connection with Syria and
Iran compel Russia to focus on modernization of its military
potential in the Caucasus and in the Mediterranean and Black seas.
Sources within the Defense Ministry claim that the Kremlin was
informed of the possibility of an American-Israeli strike at
Iranian nuclear sites. The strike was to be delivered
unexpectedly, of course, for maximum effect. That Tehran will
retaliate need not be said. All of that might result in an all-out
war whose consequences cannot be anticipated at this time.
This problem is one of the items on the agenda of the
Russian-EU summit in Brussels today. Russian Representative to the
EU Vladimir Chizhov warned the other day that the Israeli or
American strike at Iran would result in "catastrophic
consequences" and pointed out that these consequences would affect
more than the region in question alone. (It was actually recently
that Russia started putting Europe and the international community
in general under diplomatic pressure on the subject of a possible
war in Iran and its corollaries. It all started with publication
of a report on the Iranian nuclear program by the IAEA in
Military preparations for minimization of the damage expected
from the hostilities against Iran began in Russia more than a year
ago. Fortunately, nearly everything has been done already. Sources
within the Defense Ministry claim that the 102nd Military Base in
Armenia was optimized in October and November 2011. Families of
servicemen were flown to Russia, the garrison posted near Yerevan
was reduced and moved to Gyumri closer to the Turkish border. It
is from the territory of Turkey that the Americans might pounce.
Exactly what tasks the 102nd Base will have to tackle in
connection with it is not clear at this point. The Russian troops
in South Ossetia and Abkhazia have been on an alert since December
1. Surface combatants of the Black Sea Fleet are on station not
far from the coast of Georgia that might side up with the anti-
Iranian forces in this conflict.
A battery of Bal-E coast defense missile complexes (their
range is 130 kilometers) was put on an alert in Izberbash,
Dagestan, right near the Azerbaijani border. All missile boats of
the Caspian Flotilla were moved from Astrakhan to Makhachkala and
Kaspiisk. It is known that the missiles they carry have the range
of up to 200 kilometers.
Ships of the Northern Fleet under the command of the flagship
Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia's only aircraft-carrier, are already
steaming to the Mediterranean. At least the flagship is scheduled
to make a stop in Tartus, Syria. Sources within the Defense
Ministry neither confirm nor deny the rumors that nuclear
submarine accompany the group of ships on this sortie. No official
information is given on the tasks the Army and Navy will have to
perform in the event of a war on Iran. The impression is that the
Defense Ministry is worried about the 102nd Base in Armenia,
Russia's bulwark in the Caucasus. The Kremlin apparently fears
that the base might stop being a geopolitical asset. Should the
Americans and their Israeli allies go to war on Iran, this loss of
a geopolitical asset in the Caucasus will spell a catastrophe for
This April, Georgia annulled the treaty that permitted
Russian military transit to Armenia. The Russian-Armenian military
group in the Caucasus is as good as isolated at this point. Fuel,
food, and whatever else the Russian contingent needs have to be
airlifted there. A war in Iran will make this route unavailable.
Formerly second-in-command of the Russian army group in the
Caucasus, Lieutenant General Yuri Netkachev said that a war in
Iran would force Russia to start looking for a supply route to its
contingent in Armenia via Georgia. "We may even find it necessary
to break through the Georgian blockade and have the transport
corridors connecting us and Armenia protected by the military,"
said Netkachev.
The head of the Center of Political forecasts Anatoly
Tsyganok said, "Russia is quite suspicious and wary of Azerbaijan
these days. This country doubled its military budget in the last
three years. It never gives a thought to the concerns of Iran and
Armenia that are clearly upset by the Azerbaijani penchant for
buying unmanned reconnaissance craft and other sophisticated
weapons from Israel... Baku even put Russia under additional
pressure insisting on a higher pay for the use of the Gabala
radar. And yet, I would not go so far as to suggest with any
degree of certainty that Baku will necessarily back a military
campaign against Iran... even despite the disputes between Iran
and Azerbaijan over oil fields in the southern part of the Caspian
Sea. That Azerbaijan will go to war on Armenia is unlikely as
Military expert Colonel Vladimir Popov disagreed with
Tsyganok. (An expert on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in 1991-
1993, Popov is also an authority of the military reforms carried
out by President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev.) Popov said, "The
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution talks are taking way too
long. Revanchist statements are openly made in Baku. I reckon that
the Azerbaijanis might strike at Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh in
an attempt to reclaim the runaway province and finally settle the
territorial dispute." The expert said that a good deal would
depend on Russia's behavior. "Should Azerbaijan backed by Turkey
use the war on Iran as a distraction for its own little war on
Armenia, Russia and the Armenian antiaircraft forces will provide
air cover for all of Armenia. There is no saying at this point
whether or not it might be regarded as participation in the
hostilities. That the Russian army is not going to participate in
the hostilities on the territory of Karabakh need not be said.
Still, the Russian military will probably have to fight in Armenia
itself, whenever they themselves are threatened."
As a matter of fact, Popov even allowed for the possibility
of Russian participation in the conflict in Iran. "Should it come
to that... should the fall of the Iranian regime become imminent,
Russia will offer it military aid. At least on the military-
technical level," said Popov.
[return to Contents]
Forward email
This email was sent to firstname.lastname@example.com by firstname.lastname@example.com |
Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM) | Privacy Policy.
Johnson's Russia List | 6368 Circle Drive | Chincoteague | VA | 23336