Kiplinger Trashes Russia

The Salt Lake Tribune reports:

When the authoritative Kiplinger Letter starts asking, “Is Russia reverting to its darker past? Recent trends look like red flags,” you can be sure Middle America is beginning to worry.
Editors of the 84-year-old weekly newsletter are no conspiracy freaks. Realists to a fault, they try to spot trends and likely future developments in business, politics and economics. When a foreign country gets feature treatment, as Russia did in the Oct. 12 edition, it’s fair to say Kiplinger’s editors have judged it’s time to ring the alarm bell.

It makes no difference that Russian President Vladimir Putin has told the world about the kind of government he likes. He acted like an autocrat in the traditional czarist – or Stalinist – mode from the start. President Boris Yeltsin resigned on the last day of 1999. As Russia’s constitution allows, he appointed Putin as acting president. Losing no time, Putin pushed forward to March 2000 the presidential election scheduled for August.Once that was in the bag, the renamed old KGB resurfaced in full glory and President Putin was ready for the white horse. Putin, a former KGB officer, was a surprise, but he wasn’t a mystery. He didn’t hide his colors. From the start, he glorified the KGB’s past and that should have been enough to put anyone en garde. Under Putin’s increasingly totalitarian regime, leading journalists like Anna Politkovskaya have been murdered, prominent entrepreneurs like Mikhail Khodorkovsky sentenced to languish in Siberian gulags, and the voices of political dissidents all but silenced.

Where is Russia going and what does it matter to us? Should we worry or shrug our shoulders? Do we start preparing for a new confrontation with Moscow or do we drift, hoping for the best?
These are not idle questions, especially for Canada, the country in the middle. Russia is just over the North Pole and the United States is where it always has been. The frozen ocean that used to keep our continents apart stopped being an effective barrier decades ago. Long-range bombers and missiles bridged the space and the warming of the Arctic is opening the ocean. In fact, Canada recently stationed several fighter jets at an air base in central Labrador to intercept expected intrusions by Russian bombers conducting reconnaissance missions. There’s oil and natural gas under the waters, and an active struggle for control of resources is but a matter of time. The only thing that could slow down the confrontation would be the Arctic refreezing. But the clash of oil interests between an assertive Russia and a defensive, I think, United States will continue. Like missile technology in the past, new drilling and mining technology will see to that.
George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton, his most likely successor in the White House, will have to deal with a Russia that is increasingly emboldened as oil and natural gas revenue pours into its coffers.

Nine years ago, Russia defaulted on its debt. It was bankrupt. Today Russia is swimming in money. It earns at least half a billion dollars a day from exports of crude and crude oil products alone. And then there is natural gas. That kind of wealth is intoxicating, and more oil wealth is in Russia’s future. Demand from China and India alone ensure as much. But if rising demand is a natural hoist for the price of oil, the phenomenal rate of increase doesn’t seem to be. Put most crudely – please pardon the pun – I wonder if Putin is helping to keep the Middle East boiling. That’s where much of the oil on the world market comes from, and that’s where its price is lowered or driven ever higher. [LR: Right on! This is a point we have been making on this blog for quite some time now. It's about time the world caught up with us!]

So, it’s back to the eternal question: Cui bono? Who benefits? That’s where The Kiplinger Letter should have started.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

The Duma "Election" Sham Exposed: Part I

Writing for the Moscow Times, Russian journalist Konstantin Sonin explains that nobody, not even the Russian people, is fooled by the pathetic sham being conducted through the “elections” to the Russian parliament:

The Duma elections are very strange. They had seemed to be nothing more than a formality to re-elect members of a senseless and useless lower house of parliament. Then the elections turned into no more than a referendum on extending President Vladimir Putin’s presidency and legitimizing the disregard for the Constitution that prohibits a consecutive third term. And with only two weeks remaining before election day, what was thought to be a foregone result is now unexpectedly in question.

Although a high percentage of the population has expressed its trust in the president, Putin’s constituency refuses to turn this into a genuine, nationwide show of support. And even with the media under the Kremlin’s control, regional administrations towing the official line and pollsters unable to detect even the slightest popular support for any alternative, people are still not turning out in droves for rallies that call for Putin to stay on for a third term.

This lack of enthusiasm could be explained as “satiated indifference” from voters enjoying higher incomes as result of a 7-year economic boom. But the “carpet bombing” of the electorate by the state-controlled media in support of Putin and United Russia has nevertheless failed to raise their ratings. In fact, according to opinion polls, their support has been falling for the last month.

It has been clear for some time that these so-called elections would not be able to provide any real legitimacy for Putin’s regime in the eyes of the outside world. In theory, you might overlook the undemocratic election laws, such as the high entry threshold for political parties, the absence of single-mandate districts, the prohibition on negative advertising and the domination of television airtime by a single political party. These could all be dismissed as the natural shortcomings of a young democracy. But the visa restrictions placed on some observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe removes all doubt as to the real nature of these elections.

But now the elections might be void of domestic legitimacy as well: Even if governors report voter turnout of 100 percent with 90 percent in favor of United Russia, as long as there are no independent observers to corroborate the claim, this will speak to the governors’ influence on the local election commission, and not to any popular support from the voters.

But if you judge by what you see in the media, Putin is facing real opposition for the first time. The Union of Right Forces was recently the object of a negative propaganda campaign supported by the Kremlin’s resources: searches, seizure of its promotional literature, provocation in the media and the exclusion of its candidates from regional voting lists. The attacks against the Union of Right Forces were surprising because their ratings were so low anyway. Thus, an all-out campaign against this unpopular party would seem like a big waste of “administrative resources.”

When the Union of Right Forces began its election campaign, it was unable to unite the “democratic” factions in order to occupy even the smallest niche in the political landscape. But in the last two weeks, its position has become very clear: The Union of Right Forces is opposed to Putin holding on to power. The party filed an application with the Supreme Court last week calling for Putin’s exclusion from United Russia’s electoral list, arguing that it violated election laws.

This truly is a strange campaign. Only two short weeks ago, you could have said that these elections were a foregone conclusion, with no possibility of an upset. And now it turns out, would you believe, that it’s possible to vote against Putin retaining his authority and, instead, vote for the Union of Right Forces.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

The Duma "Election" Sham Exposed: Part II

Writing in the Moscow Times, the Carnegie Center’s Nikolai Petrov continues the review of the sham nature of the upcoming parliamentary poll in Russia:

The State Duma election campaign will reach its end next week. Looking back, the entire process has been little more than a struggle among various pro-Putin candidates vying for Duma seats. The State Duma election campaign will reach its end next week. Looking back, the entire process has been little more than a struggle among various pro-Putin candidates vying for Duma seats.

On Wednesday, at Moscow’s Luzhniki stadium, United Russia will organize an event at which Putin will be formally presented with an appeal stating that members of the “Za Putina,” or “For Putin” movement will do everything possible to “contribute to the continuation of Vladimir Putin’s work for the benefit of the Russian people.” This will be presented as a “mandate from the people.”

A gathering of those spearheading the pro-Putin movement took place in Tver on Thursday, with representatives from almost every region in attendance. Putin, incidentally, has family roots in this region located between Moscow and St. Petersburg. The Tver region is also the popular location for several summer camp events at Lake Seliger held for the pro-Putin Nashi youth movement.

In addition, a large petition campaign has started that will be yet another tool to support the initiative to allow Putin to remain as president for a third term. As many as 30 million signatures have apparently been gathered already. Putin supporters are planning to present this petition to the president next week and to declare officially that he is the country’s “National Leader.”

The Za Putina movement was founded in the regions by “ordinary people,” such as war veterans, businesspeople, social service workers, military personnel and athletes — in short, the “backbone of society,” in the true Soviet meaning of the phrase. In this context, it is interesting to note that the three co-presidents of Za Putina are prominent lawyer and television personality Pavel Astakhov, heart surgeon Renat Akhchurin and agricultural union leader Natalya Agapova. It is amusing that one of the stated goals of the movement is to establish civil society’s control over government and over the “Putin Plan.”

Another project emerged this summer called “The Country’s Professional Team,” which is a nationwide competition organized by United Russia with the main goal of attracting new, talented people to the party. This is United Russia’s attempt to answer Putin’s criticism of the country’s poor management, which began last summer and intensified last week when he made some sharp comments while meeting with construction workers in Krasnoyarsk. This competition also gives United Russia an opportunity to distance itself somewhat from the Kremlin and to strengthen its ties with the electorate. It has attracted participants from the state and municipal administrations, industry, the service sector, mass media, public health services, science, culture and education. Of the 18,000 applications submitted for the competition, there were almost 6,000 prizewinners from both the regional and federal levels.

The third weapon in the pro-Putin movement’s arsenal is an appeal from regional legislative bodies in such cities as Yamalo-Nenetsk and Sverdlovsk, calling on Putin to “preserve his role as the national leader and continue his active participation in the life of the country” after his second presidential term expires in 2008.

What is the reason for these nationwide campaigns? To give legitimacy to the authorities and their continued efforts to maintain Putin’s regime after his second presidential term expires? To show that these types of rallies and demonstrations represent, in their minds, a form of democracy that serves as a de facto substitute for elections? To forge a link between the party’s bureaucratic machine and the voters on the eve of elections?

All of this comes at a time when the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, part of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, has announced that that bureaucratic obstacles have now made it impossible for international observers to monitor the December elections fully.

Maybe the Kremlin is right. Maybe there is no point in monitoring a process that is not so much an election as an internal struggle among the political elites. The Duma elections have boiled down to a national demonstration of loyalty to Putin as well as an attempt by the Kremlin elite to preserve its power base. And it is not so important whether the election process is more in the interests of Putin or the clans surrounding him. The most disturbing element is that it is not in the best interests of democracy.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Once Again, Washington Post Stands Up to Putin

An editorial in the Washington Post:

IT WAS NO surprise when authorities shut another independent newspaper in Vladimir Putin’s Russia this month, but the pretext was particularly illustrative of the cynicism of Mr. Putin’s regime. The Samara edition of the Novaya Gazeta newspaper had offended those in power by fairly covering the political opposition, so police swooped in on Nov. 8, confiscated the newspaper’s lone remaining computer (having seized the others last spring) and indicted its editor for allegedly using a counterfeit version of some Microsoft software. For one of the world’s leaders in intellectual piracy, this was indeed rich.

On the other hand, it was nothing new for Dmitry Muratov, editor in chief of the national edition of Novaya Gazeta, which continues to publish against great odds. A government-backed monopoly makes it increasingly difficult for him to secure advertising, and another makes it harder and harder to sell his newspaper in Russia’s ubiquitous kiosks. Meanwhile, three of his bravest reporters — Igor Domnikov, Yuri Shchekochikhin and Anna Politkovskaya — have been murdered while investigating government corruption and human rights abuses. “I would prefer them to shut the newspaper altogether rather than kill us one by one,” Mr. Muratov said last week.

Yet Mr. Muratov — gruff, bearish and apparently beyond intimidation — continues to publish, to expose, even to investigate the unsolved murders of his own journalists. Tonight in New York City he will receive an International Press Freedom Award from the Committee to Protect Journalists. So will Mazhar Abbas, who has led protests in Pakistan against Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s constriction of the free media; Gao Qinrong of China, who spent eight years in prison for accurate reporting that embarrassed local officials; and Adela Navarro Bello, whose weekly magazine Zeta in Tijuana, Mexico, reports on drug barons and their corrupt ties to officials. Two Zeta editors have been murdered, and Ms. Bello, general director of the magazine, regularly receives death threats.

In an interview last week, Ms. Bello was matter-of-fact about the risks she runs. “We are not suicidal,” she said. “We do our professional work, in a country where there are not enough guarantees for our security.” She, like Mr. Muratov and the other honorees, reminds us of the almost unimaginable bravery of thousands of others who stand up to bullies like Mr. Putin, simply because they believe it is the right thing to do.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Here Come the Excuses

Russians always have a reason why it isn’t their fault when they lose, yet it’s always their fault when they win — which is basically why they almost never do actually win. The Telegraph reports:

Of all the excuses Russia have put forward for losing to Israel on Saturday, surely the most hilarious is that rumours of bribery and corruption had “a negative effect on them.” Apparently, media speculation in the Komosomolskaya Pravda that Joe Cole offered to buy his Chelsea team-mate, the Israel defender, Tal Ben-Haim, a holiday if Israel won totally unsettled the Russian side. We had no idea the post-Soviet Russian psyche was so prone to collapse whenever confronted by deviation from strict purity. Perhaps the odd little deception during the Cold War, and occasional gentleman competing as a (bearded) lady at the Olympics, has left them yearning for sport played with only a straight bat. In any event, the president of the Russian FA has complained most vigorously to his nation’s press that their reports that Israel had been bribed to lose were fundamental to the 2-1 defeat. That’s funny. If reports that a rival had been bribed to lose met England’s burning ears, they would probably be relieved and delighted.

The International Herald Tribune explains the problem: Too many Russians on the teams!

Less than a week ago, Russia was euphoric and believed that it was on the road to the European Championship finals. Now the odds are against it. For all the oligarchs’ money, for all the guile of its coach, Guus Hiddink, the players simply do not seem worldly enough for such competition.

The problem for Russia is that its players are all Russian.

“We have no other players,” Sport Express said Monday on its front page. “Don’t blame them for failure, they gave all they have. It was not enough.”

It has not been enough for Russia, or for any of the former Soviet republics since the empire dissolved 15 years ago. From the current team, perhaps Andrei Arshavin is the one true Russian of genuine quality; the rest are athletic, young, eager, quick. But mostly athletic. This is the way it always was. In 1960, the Soviet Union won the inaugural European Championship in Paris. Through the 1970s and 1980s, it was world youth champion, World Cup regular and Olympic champion. It had Russian order, but flamboyant Georgians, flying wingers from Ukraine, subtlety from Armenia, cunning players from the Crimea. In essence, the Soviet bloc forged, or very nearly forged, a unity on the field that told the history of the struggle to combine 290 million people of different ethnicity under one flag. Yet all was not as simple as it appeared.

When Wales journeyed to Tbilisi, Georgia, in 1981, two of the finest local players – David Kipiani, a marvelous field general, and Alexandre Chivadze, who came out of defense with all the elegance of a Soviet Franz Beckenbauer – were injured bystanders. But the Soviets still had the dark creator Vitali Daraselia, the darting Ramaz Shengelia, the phenomenally quick Oleg Blokhin. They won, 3-0. Those of us who went learned about cockroaches in the hotel beds and also the difference between a Russian and the other, proudly separate, players on the team. It was Kipiani, later to die in a car crash, who sharply corrected me when I made the error of referring to Russian soccer. He was Georgian, so were Daraselia and Shengelia. Blokhin was, and is in his dual role today as national team coach and a member of Parliament, thoroughly Ukrainian.

Yet the habit in the West was to regard the Soviet team as Russia’s. Was it coincidence or a natural preference for players who create rather than those who are principally athletes in boots that made the fascination with the Soviets focus almost exclusively non-Russian? It’s a subjective matter, a question of what pleases the eye. Nonetheless, the players who seemed gave the Soviet Union some spell-binding spontaneity, included: Khoren Oganesyan (Armenian), Anatoliy Demyanenko (Ukrainian), Vagiz Khidiyatullin (born in Perm, Russia, of Tatar origin), Alexei Mikhailichenko, Viktor Onopko, Andrei Kanchelskis (all Ukrainian), Valery Karpin (Estonian).

There were interesting Russians: Lev Yashin, because he was known as the goalkeeper in black and also as a KGB man, and later Aleksandr Mostovoi and Dmitri Alenitchev. Why the history and geography lesson? Because it shows what a task Hiddink has taken on. It explains why none of the 15 states of the former Soviet Union looks like making it through to the final 16 nations in Euro 2008. Ukraine, built around Andriy Shevchenko, the best of his breed in the modern era, peaked at the World Cup in 2006. It has disintegrated during the current campaign. Its coach, Blokhin, senses that sooner rather than later his time will be up, and someone else must build from scratch. That, pretty much, is where Hiddink is with Russia. Hiddink, who is Dutch, is paid, courtesy of the Chelsea baron, Roman Abramovich, close to $3 million a year; he is contracted to 2010.

“We must get,” he said, “a little bit more streetwise.”

Hiddink’s squad is young, inexperienced, willing to learn. But aside from Arshavin, who plotted England’s downfall in Moscow last month and who shone again in Ramat Gan, Israel, last weekend, there is a clear lack of street smarts. The dilemma for Russia, despite its huge population pool of 141 million citizens, is that few of its players know the pace, the movements, the strategies of Europe’s top leagues. Even Arshavin, with his bright mind and his polished technique, has yet to make the transition, and he is 26, though, if the rumors are correct, he will soon join Newcastle in England’s Premier League. Yet Russia isn’t quite eliminated yet. It needs Croatia to win against England in London on Wednesday and to complete the seemingly foregone conclusion of victory over Andorra to qualify.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !