EDITORIAL: The Malignant Little Troll Who Stole Christmas

“‘It is very good news for us,’ said Russian government spokesman
Dmitry Peskov [speaking about Time magazine's "Person of the Year"
designation"]. ‘We treat it as an acknowledgment of the role that was
played by President Putin in helping to pull Russia out of the economic
and social troubles of the 1990s, and restoring national pride in this country.’”

EDITORIAL

The Malignant Little Troll Who Stole Christmas

It’s Christmas eve, and below we issue our best holiday wishes to all our readers and contributors around the world. But our heart isn’t in it.

How could it be? Just look at that cartoon above for a moment: It shows Russian dictator Vladimir Putin holding a blood-soaked baseball bat (just like the one that was used to brutally murder Yuri Chervotchkin) while his enormous jackboots crush the life out of the people of Russia who dare to dream about freedom and democracy. It’s a brilliant cartoon, which could only be improved by being published in color so the blood splatters would be even more vividly real.

Now think about Oleg Kozlovsky (pictured, left). He’s a real name for one of these cartoon people being crushed under Putin’s feet, a real Russian college student who’s really been Shanghaied into the real Russian army, that really practices dedovshchina torture, and then spirited way to Ryazan, far from his family and friends, in order to silence his heroic protests against the neo-Soviet regime presided over by that malignant little troll who prowls the Kremlin’s parapets by night. Oleg could turn up dead any second now — or worse. Remember 19-year-old Private Andrei Sychyov (pictured, below right) who had to have his legs and genitals amputated after being subjected to the tortures of dedovshchina? That might be Oleg Kozlovsky’s Christmas present.

And it’s clear that Putin has acted purposely against Kozlovsky precisely because it is Christmas. It’s the time when the Western press would be least able and likely to take note of and report on this outrage, and the same for Western governments. After today, the Moscow Times for instance will only publish twice more until January 9th, and there is (shamefully) nothing in today’s edition about Kozlovsky. In this calculating action we see the face of Satanic evil, pure and simple.

Now think about Time magazine’s “Person of the Year” award to Vladimir Putin, and think about the words that appear under it, which constitute the Kremlin’s official reaction to the selection. If you’re like us, your skin will crawl and you will find it very hard indeed to put your heart in season’s greetings.

Time’s editors rationalized their selection by stating: “Time’s Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest.” Yet, it’s clear they didn’t do remotely enough to make it impossible for the Kremlin to twist and warp their action into a propaganda victory, and therefore they helped it continue to oppress Russians like Kozlovsky and Sychyov. Much worse, Time hasn’t been doing the kind of reporting on Putin’s outrageous behavior that would make it clear that the magazine stands against him, as Kim Zigfeld has demonstrated on Pajamas Media. In fact, they’ve published much that could be read as pro-Kremlin propaganda, and in this light their POTY selection takes on aspects of pure evil. We condemn Time magazine for this outrageous failure, and urge its readers to find another source of news. Every time you buy this rag, you’re being played for a sucker.

As an editorial in the Arizona Republic states:

State-controlled Russian TV is boasting the news this week, reports the Moscow Times, leaving out descriptions of what Time described as Putin’s “dark side.” And, oh, what a dark side. Putin’s Russia is a place where the old Soviet national anthem has been revived along with a new appreciation of Joseph Stalin, perhaps history’s bloodiest dictator. U.S.S.R.-style posters glorify Kremlin-backed Brownshirts called Nashi. Putin has turned to energy blackmail, threatening to cut off oil to Russia’s breakaway republics and, by extension, Western Europe. He legalized the murder of Russia’s enemies abroad. And in late 2006, British citizen and Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko was fatally poisoned in London. The radioactive evidence leads back to Moscow. Putin crushes press freedoms, and many journalists critical of the government are murdered. He sells weapons systems to rogue states such as Venezuela and Syria, and obstructs efforts to rein in Iranian nuclear ambitions. Recently he threatened to reset Russian missiles to aim at Western Europe. A former KGB lieutenant colonel, Putin is credited by Time for restoring order in Russia and winning the broad support of his countrymen. But he is also summoning the demons of a Cold War, in which the United States and Russia tiptoed to the brink of nuclear annihilation. Putin complains a lot today about the United States. Time reports it is his perception that Americans are out to interfere in Russia’s affairs. That Russia is being treated like an uninvited guest at a party. It seems a particularly petty complaint, given what would have happened had the Soviets won the Cold War. Communist Russia did more than insult those it defeated, it subjugated them. One more reason why Time’s cover boy and his nostalgia for that Russia should give us pause.

An even more devastating attack on Time‘s actions came from Pajamas Media editor Michael Weiss, who pointed out that it’s the random fact of a rising world oil price, not any identifiable policies of Vladimir Putin, that account for Russia’s marginally improved economic status under his rule. A major new piece in Foreign Affairs shows that Russia would be far more economically prosperous now if Putin had not embarked upon his barbaric crackdown on Russia’s civil society. The article synopsis leaves no room for doubt: “A growing conventional wisdom holds that Vladimir Putin’s attack on democracy has brought Russia stability and prosperity — providing a new model of successful market authoritarianism. But the correlation between autocracy and economic growth is spurious. Autocracy’s effects in Russia have in fact been negative. Whatever the gains under Putin, they would have been greater under a democratic regime.”

And to put the rotten cherry on top of this cake of excrement, even as Time‘s POTY issue was going to press it was being reported in the major newspapers of Europe that Vladimir Putin has embezzled billions of dollars from the Russian treasury and may be the wealthiest man in Europe. So not only didn’t Putin’s policies make any difference for Russia, but you can’t even argue that his heart was in the right place.

He’s just black evil.

It’s just another sad example of how many parts mainstream media is letting us all down, forcing the blogosphere to pick up the slack. A far as we’re concerned, Time magazine is a corrupt anachronism, obsolete and doing far more harm than good. It can’t go bankrupt and disappear soon enough to suit us. And as far as we’re concerned, everybody in the world should have a subscription to the Arizona Republic! It’s well to remember that there are many publications out there in the MSM which are struggling to get the truth out, and they should be supported and admired.

For time out of mind, Russia has tortured and killed its most selfless heroic patriots while elevating its most vile traitors to the status of national hero. That it is happening all over again probably shouldn’t be too surprising, but that we in the West, having seen it all before, would tolerate such incompetence and collaboration in our own midst should be shocking. It’s time we wake up and realize that a cold war is going on and right now the Russians are the only ones who are fighting it.

Vladimir Putin has spoiled Christmas for the entire thinking world, and Time magazine has helped him do it. If there’s any justice, both of them will get Polonium-laced coal in their stockings tomorrow morning — or better yet a magic mirror that will follow them around and force them to stare at their own reflections throughout all eternity.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Latest on Kozlovsky

Under a phalanx of Oborona banners, a protester
holds a sign that begs the people of Russia
to save Oleg Kozlovsky from a ghoulish slavery in the Russian army.

Confirming what we have already reported, heroic Russian human rights activist Yulia Malysheva writes: “Oleg is in the army in Ryazan as an ordinary soldier. Tomorrow he will see a doctor who will officially say whether he is ‘OK.’ Oleg said that every time a doctor sees him there is a FSB person present who directs the physician as to what to write in the medical documents. Oleg wants this to be known. Oleg is a reserve officer of Russian army but his documents somehow were ‘lost.’ His friends have a video of him taking the oath as an officer. Hopefully it can be published soon.”

Meanwhile, FinRosForum reports:

A Moscow court handed sentences today on four activists arrested earlier for taking part in a demonstration protesting the illegal military draft of Oleg Kozlovsky, Moscow coordinator of the opposition youth movement, Oborona. The four being tried were Sergey Konstantinov from Kaliningrad, Yekaterina Kushner from Barnaul, Dmitry Konstantinov from Surgut, and
Alexey Ignatenko from Cheboksary. They were accused of non-compliance with police demands.

The judge sentenced Sergey Konstantinov to 15 days of administrative arrest. Eyewitnesses said Konstantinov gave the finger to the judge, after which he was dragged out of the courthouse into a waiting police van where he was beaten up severely.

Four activists present at the court session were arrested and carried away by the hands and feet after they refused to leave without the judge ordering the session to be a closed one. One of the four arrested, Valentina Chubarova, is the daughter of the TV and radio journalist, Viktor Shenderovich.

Sergey Konstantinov was taken by ambulance to hospital. Of the three other accused, Yekaterina Kushner received a fine of RUR 2,000, while Dmitry Konstantinov and Alexey Ignatenko were sentenced to fines and 10 days of administrative arrest. They will spend their New Year’s Eve under arrest.

Other Russia updates the situation on those arrested protesting Kozlovsky’s induction:

Sergei Konstantinov, one of the leaders of the “Free Radicals” movement, has been beaten by law enforcement officers after a court hearing on his recent arrest. He has been hospitalized at a Moscow clinic for his wounds, with a tentative diagnosis of a concussion to the brain.

Konstantinov had been arrested at a sanctioned demonstration on December 21st, and was standing trial along with three other activists. Individuals in the courtroom reported that four witnesses, Nikolai Zboroshenko, Aleksei Kazakov, Maria Paramonova and Valentina Chubarova, were forcefully expelled from the proceedings.

Sergei Konstantinov was ultimately sentenced to 15 days of administrative arrest, and was fined 1000 rubles (€28 or $40). The three other arrested activists were also fined between 1000 and 2000 rubles, and two of them were sentenced to 10 days arrest. All four were charged with noncompliance to a militsiya officer and participating in an unsanctioned picket.

On December 21st, OMON Special Forces violently dispersed an opposition protest in Moscow, and arrested around 20 participants. Protesters had formally registered the demonstration to protest against violations in the December 2nd State Duma elections, but had also used the occasion to speak out against the illegal arrest and conscription of Oleg Kozlovsky.

It could not be more clear that the Kremlin is in deadly earnest and means to destroy Oborona from the top down, using the most extreme and brutal means available.

In related news, the Moscow Times reports that six candidates have been approved to run for president in March: “First Deputy Prime Ministry Dmitry Medvedev, Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov, Liberal Democratic Party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky, former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, Union of Right Forces leader Boris Nemtsov and Democratic Party leader Andrei Bogdanov.” Garry Kasparov has been kept off the ballot, as has Yabloko’s candidate Vladimir Bukovsky. And the two liberal candidates Kasyanov and Nemtsov “now have to collect 2 million signatures in support of their bids and submit them to the commission by Jan. 16.”

Writing the Wall Street Journal, Kasparov sums up the situation:

Ever since President Vladimir Putin took office eight long years ago, the political and media leadership of the West have had a full-time job trying to look on the bright side of Russia’s rapid turn from democracy.

The free press has been demolished, elections are canceled and rigged, and then we hear how popular Mr. Putin is. Opposition marches are crushed, and we’re told — over and over — how much better off we are today than in the days of the Soviet Union. This week Time magazine named Mr. Putin its 2007 “Person of the Year.” [Vladimir Putin] Vladimir Putin

Unfortunately, there is no silver lining to Russia’s descent into dictatorship. If anything there is a look of iron to it.

Condoleezza Rice, hardly a Putin critic, said recently that Russia “is not an environment in which you can talk about free and fair elections.” A good start, but this comment was not made where one would imagine — perhaps at a press conference insisting that Putin’s Russia be removed from the G-7 for making a mockery of democratic practices. No, her remark came as a side note to her very early endorsement of Mr. Putin’s handpicked heir to the throne, Dmitry Medvedev. The most revealing moment in Ms. Rice’s comments came when the topic of Mr. Medvedev as the next president was first broached. The official transcript reads: “SECRETARY RICE: Well, I guess, they’re still going to have an election in March. ” Perhaps my sense of humor was dulled during the five days I spent in a Moscow jail last month for protesting against these sham elections. Or maybe it was reading about the constant persecution of my fellow activists across the country that did it. Madam Secretary went on to speak approvingly of Mr. Medvedev, making the undemocratic nature of his selection sound like a minor annoyance. The last remaining element of democracy in Russia, the transition of power, will be destroyed. Will Mr. Putin and his successor still be welcomed with open arms in the club of leading democracies?

In the early days of our opposition activities last year, when members of Other Russia were harassed and arrested, the “bright siders” in the West said it could be worse. Later, when our marchers were badly beaten in St. Petersburg and Moscow, Mr. Putin’s fans in the West said at least the police weren’t killing us in the streets.

Last week, 22-year-old opposition activist Yury Chervochkin died in hospital after several weeks in a coma. He had been beaten nearly to death an hour after making an anxious cellphone call to our offices saying he was being followed by members of the organized-crime task force known as UBOP, which has become the vanguard of the Kremlin’s war on political opposition. A witness saw him clubbed repeatedly by men with baseball bats. Yury’s sin was not chanting Nazi slogans or praising the deeds of Josef Stalin, activities that regularly go unremarked in Russia these days. No, he had been caught throwing leaflets that read “The elections are a farce!” That was enough to make him a marked man. Now, for agitating for real democracy in Russia, he is dead.

The stakes have been raised to the highest level, and what bright side will be found now? Where is the line that cannot be crossed without a serious response from the West? So far Mr. Putin hasn’t found it — and he has good reason to suspect such a line simply does not exist. It is for the leaders in Washington, D.C., Paris and Berlin to decide what it means to denounce the Russian elections as fraudulent, only to then embrace the winners as democratic partners.

Lesser tragedies than that of Yury Chervochkin are occurring on a regular basis in Russia today. Last week journalist Natalya Morar was denied entry into the country on secret orders of the FSB security force, after writing investigative articles on financial deals with Kremlin connections. Lyudmila Kharlamova, a political organizer for Other Russia, was arrested after heroin was planted among her possessions in Orenburg. Activist Andrei Grekhov suffered a similar fate in Rostov, though the police chose to plant bullets instead of drugs in his pockets.

This is a good opportunity to remember Anna Politkovskaya, the investigative journalist who was murdered on Oct. 7, 2006, Putin’s birthday. The police investigation into this infamous assassination has stalled and talk of it has died down. The Kremlin is counting on the same thing happening with “minor” cases like that of Yury Chervochkin.

In a recent speech, Mr. Putin said “the enemies of the state must be wiped out!” It has been made quite clear that by “enemies” he means anyone who opposes his total authority. It is no surprise that his words are taken at face value across the country, and acted on by security forces eager to prove their loyalty and enthusiasm.

The presidents and prime ministers of the West seem just as eager to bow down to the Kremlin and the great god of business as usual. Nicolas Sarkozy raced to congratulate Mr. Putin on his party’s election victory, despite the overwhelming evidence of massive fraud at the polls. A few days later France’s Renault picked up a 25% share in Russian automaker AvtoVaz, a purchase made from Sergei Chemezov and his arms-dealing company Rosoboronexport. Why should Mr. Putin and his oligarchs worry about democracy as long as the money keeps rolling in?

Time magazine, of course, took obvious pains to explain that its award to Mr. Putin is “not an endorsement” and that it goes to the person who made the most news “for better or for worse.” Nonetheless the article praises Mr. Putin for restoring his country to prominence in the international arena, dispelling “anarchy” and recovering national pride. The magazine does express concern about his “troubling” record on human rights.

The same things could have been said about Adolf Hitler in 1938, when he took his turn as Time’s Man of the Year. “Fascism,” Time wrote then, “has discovered that freedom — of press, speech, assembly — is a potential danger to its own security.” Again these words apply equally well to this year’s winner.

Most of the criticism leveled against Mr. Putin regards “alleged” abuses or comes directly from known critics. This abdicates the journalist’s role to report the facts as facts.

Consider the timing of this announcement, right after the counterfeit parliamentary elections that added to Mr. Putin’s record of eradicating democracy across Russia. The Time article will be trumpeted by Kremlin propaganda as an endorsement of Mr. Putin’s policies. The man on the street will be told that even America, constantly blasted by the Kremlin as an enemy, has been forced to recognize the president’s greatness.

Internationally, the focus will be on the myth that Mr. Putin has built a “strong Russia.” In fact he and his cronies have hollowed out the state from within. Most of the power now resides in the super-corporations like Gazprom and Rosneft, and among the small group of loyalists who run them.

The Putin regime has taken Russia from a frail democracy to an efficient mafia state. It was an impressive balancing act — behaving like a tyrant while at the same time staying in the good graces of the West. After each crackdown, with no significant international reaction forthcoming, Mr. Putin knew it was safe to take another step. As ever, appeasement in the name of realpolitik only encourages would-be dictators. And such moral weakness inevitably leads to very real costs in human life

It’s a pity of course that Kasparov did not manage to make reference to Kozlovsky’s fate; even he is coming up short in many respects, clearly not doing all in his power to stand up for democracy in Russia — but he is doing far more, and risking far more, than most. The West looked the other way as Stalin and Hitler rose to power, then paid a huge price for their indifference.

Will we make exactly the same mistake all over again?

Grigori Pasko Interviews Kozlovsky Before the Crisis

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Merry Christmas, Every One!

The Publisher, Editors and
Staff of La Russophobe
wish a VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS
to all their contributors,
commenters and readers
around the world.

We were, of course, reluctant to post this greeting in light of what has happened to our friend Oleg Kozlovsky. But we decided a bit of lightness is necessary in this gathering gloom, and we feel that the hope for fellowship and peace offered by this season has never been more desperately needed where Russia is concerned than this year, as we watch the country slip deeper and deeper into the abyss of dictatorship. Say a Christmas prayer for Russia if you are so inclined, and remember that Christmas is a day that reminds us of the ever-present possibility of salvation, no matter how dark the dawn.

There were in the same country shepherds, abiding in the fields, keeping watch over their flocks by night. And lo! An Angel of the Lord appeared before them, and the Glory of the Lord shown round about them, and they were sore afraid. But the Angel said unto them: “Fear not! For behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people! For unto you is born this day, in the City of David, a Savior – tis Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you: You will find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lying in a manger!” Then there was with the Angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God and singing: “Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth Peace among those with whom He is pleased.”

La Russophobe will resume publication on Wednesday December 26th.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Kasparov Challenges Putin to Duel

Writing on Other Russia, Garry Kasparov challenges Vladimir Putin to debate and settle their score. Does Putin have the guts?

First let there be no misunderstanding about what this award is supposed to represent. According to TIME, it is for the person who “has done the most to change the news, for better or for worse.” Obviously Putin has been in the news a great deal in 2007, and it’s clear that the direction he has moved my country has been “for worse” both for Russians and for the international community.

Putin’s regime has crushed dissent, rigged elections, and systematically destroyed democratic institutions and civil liberties, processes that only accelerated in 2007. Despite record oil and gas prices that sent the Russian GDP skyrocketing, the vast majority of Russians outside the major capital cities have seen little or no improvement in their standard of living, largely due to runaway food prices and a decaying infrastructure. With most of the corporate and state revenues leaving Russia for western real estate and personal bank accounts, the gap between rich and poor here has reached staggering levels.

The TIME announcement praises their selection for restoring his country to prominence in the international arena, dispelling “anarchy”, and recovering national pride. The magazine does express concern about his “troubling” record on human rights. The same things could have been said about Adolf Hitler in 1938, when he took his turn as TIME’s Man of the Year. “Fascism,” TIME wrote then, “has discovered that freedom – of press, speech, assembly – is a potential danger to its own security.” Again these words apply equally well to this year’s winner.

In 1938 there was no doubt that Hitler was a force for evil and TIME made that very clear. But with Putin they perpetuate elements of Kremlin propaganda into the story and often present Putin’s mythology uncritically. Yes, there was epic corruption in the Yeltsin years, but have things improved under Putin or just become more efficient and quieter? Are Putin’s pet oligarchs less rich, less rapacious, less influential? The main difference is that because there was still a free press under Yeltsin, the people found out what was going on. Putin eliminated that possibility – along with many of his critics – soon after taking power.

That Putin has created a “strong Russia” is the biggest fallacy of them all. In fact he and his cronies have hollowed the state out from within. Power now resides with the giant corporations like Gazprom and the small group of loyalists who run them. Putin has managed to bully Europe with Russia’s energy wealth and to damage global stability by entertaining and defending the likes of Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Intimidation and provocation, however, should not be misconstrued as real strength. The Tsar’s new clothes are woven entirely from oil and gas.

I understand that this award is not intended to be a beauty contest. But for all of Putin’s attacks on the West, this will be promoted widely within Russia and around the world as a victory and an endorsement by the West of Putin’s policies and practices of dictatorship. It’s an early Christmas present to the Kremlin when what they really deserved was a lump of coal.

I will add a brief response to Putin’s jibe in the TIME article about my speaking English to reporters after my arrest last month. First, I also spoke in Russian, which oddly enough never makes the Kremlin-controlled newscasts. Second, since opposition statements are almost completely banned in the Russian media the foreign press usually makes up 90% of attending media at opposition events. Lastly, I would be delighted to show Mr. Putin which of us speaks and writes better Russian. Perhaps he will accept my challenge to a debate on national television or allow an editorial of mine to appear in a major newspaper.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Russia and Qatar

Writing in Middle East Review of International Affairs Mark N. Katz, a professor of government and politics at George Mason University, reviews Russia’s recent efforts to insinuate itself into the Middle East:

From 2004 to 2007, relations between Russia and Qatar went from extremely poor to remarkably cooperative. How did this happen? Considering that Russia and Qatar are both among the world’s three largest producers of natural gas (the third being Iran), what does this Russian-Qatari rapprochement portend?

Even early on in the Putin era, there was recognition in Moscow that Russia could benefit from cooperating with Qatar in the oil and gas spheres.^[1] Moscow also hoped to sell arms to Qatar as well as to boost trade and investment ties with the country. The visit of the emir of Qatar, Shaykh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani to Moscow and his meeting with Putin in December 2001 raised expectations for increased Russian-Qatari cooperation.^[2] There was even talk of Russia and Qatar working together to create a “gas OPEC [Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries].”^[3]

None of these prospects for Russian-Qatari cooperation, however, were fulfilled–at least not then. There were also important differences between Moscow and Doha related to Chechnya. Even when he was still prime minister, Putin declared Qatar to be one of a dozen countries which he believed was “exporting terrorism to Russia.”^[4] At the time of the visit made by the Russian president’s special representative Vasily Sredin to all the Gulf Cooperation Council states in late 2000, Nezavisimaya gazeta described these countries as “a very difficult region for Russia, in large part due to the Chechen problem.”^[5] In addition, a sharp dispute arose between Moscow and Doha over former Chechen rebel president Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev.

Yandarbiyev was vice president of Chechnya under Dzhokhar Dudayev. When the latter was killed by Russian forces in April 1996, Yandarbiyev became acting president. Yandarbiyev, however, lost the Chechen presidential elections of January 1997. He then went to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan where he opened a Chechen embassy in Kabul and a consulate in Kandahar. By 1999, though, he had moved to Qatar where he reportedly raised money for the Chechen cause.^[6] From 1999 through most of 2002, Moscow “periodically raised the issue of Yandarbiyev’s presence in Qatar,” but only “half-heartedly,” according to Vremya novostei.^[7] The Kremlin, however, stepped up its demands after the October 2002 seizure of a Moscow theater by Chechen rebels and the ensuing hostage crisis. One of the leaders of this group spoke to Yandarbiyev by cell phone during the crisis, which was proof enough for Moscow that Yandarbiyev was an accomplice.^[8] In addition to getting Yandarbiyev placed on Interpol’s most-wanted list, the UN Security Council’s counterterrorist committee added him to its “sanctions list” in June 2003. Russia formally requested Yandarbiyev’s extradition from Qatar in May 2003. Yet while “Officials in Qatar promised to consider the request,” they did not take any action against him.^[9]

On February 13, 2004, Yandarbiyev died in Doha when the vehicle he was traveling in blew up. Shortly thereafter, Qatari authorities detained three Russian officials whom they accused of killing Yandarbiyev. As it would on other occasions when Putin opponents died suddenly and mysteriously, Moscow hotly denied any involvement in Yandarbiyev’s death.^[10] Yet circumstantial evidence strongly suggested that it was.

Since one of the three detained Russians had a diplomatic passport, he was released to the Russian Embassy in Doha. The other two, however, were held and charged with complicity in murder.^[11] Moscow’s initial reaction was extremely hostile and belligerent; a Qatari wrestler and his trainer were arrested at Sheremetovo airport, in an apparent retaliation for Qatar’s arrest of the two Russians. The trainer, though, turned out to be a citizen of Belarus and not Qatar, while the wrestler was a citizen of both Qatar and Belarus. Further, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov stated that the “Russian leadership will use all available leverage on Qatar to secure its citizens’ release,” thus raising the possibility that Moscow respond with the use of force.^[12] Doha initially refused to allow into Qatar attorneys from abroad for the detained Russians.^[13]

Yet the crisis began to de-escalate following a March 2004 telephone conversation between Putin and the Qatari Emir. Russian authorities soon thereafter released the Qatari wrestler and his trainer, who immediately flew to Doha. Qatar then declared persona non grata the Russian with the diplomatic passport whom Doha believed was also involved in Yandarbiyev’s death; he immediately left for Moscow.^[14] Speculation soon arose that Moscow and Doha had reached a face-saving agreement to resolve the crisis. In the months that followed, the two Russians were tried and convicted of murder, but were sentenced to life in prison–not to death.^[15] A Qatari appellate court soon upheld both their guilty verdicts and their life sentences.^[16] Not long afterward, Russia and Qatar signed a prisoner exchange agreement. At the end of 2004, the Qatari Emir allowed the two Russians to return to Russia to serve out their sentences.^[17]

Once this happened, the crisis in Russian-Qatari relations appeared to come to an end. Speculation arose that Moscow would release the two Russians, but in December 2005, a Russian official denied this and stated that they were still serving their sentences. He declined, though, to name the prison where they were being held.^[18] Even if they are no longer actually in prison, the two have not surfaced in public, and so there is no evidence that Russia has violated the prisoner exchange agreement with Qatar.

During 2005 and 2006, Russian-Qatari relations quietly improved. In April 2006, Qatar joined Russia and Iran in announcing the provision of funds to the Palestinian Authority despite the American-European-Israeli embargo against it. Vremya novostei seemed to delight in pointing out that this caused tension in U.S.-Qatari relations.^[19] In May 2006, Sergei Lavrov went to Doha to participate in the Dialogue on Cooperation in Asia. He delivered a message from Putin to the emir, but little of substance regarding Russian-Qatari relations appears to have occurred.^[20] In October 2006, the Qatari Foreign Minister visited Moscow and met with Putin, who made a point of thanking Qatar for supporting Russia in becoming an observer member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in 2005.^[21]

Russian-Qatari relations appeared to improve dramatically when Putin himself paid a visit to Qatar (as well as Saudi Arabia and Jordan) in February 2007. His visit to Qatar, however, appeared to be particularly significant since it occurred shortly after two events: first, the January 2007 proposal by Iranian Supreme Leader Khamene’i that Russia and Iran work to form a natural gas cartel;^[22] and second, Putin’s February 10, 2007 speech in Munich that was highly critical of American foreign policy and which seemed aimed at rallying other governments, as well as world public opinion, against it.^[23]

Despite his Munich speech, Putin did not emphasize this anti-American theme in Qatar. He was also somewhat coy about the gas cartel proposal, stating that he had not rejected it but found the idea “interesting.” He emphasized, though, that the idea needed to be “examined,” especially in light of the “mistakes” that “other cartel organizations” (apparently referring to OPEC) had made. He also noted that there was nothing to prevent gas producing countries from consulting and coordinating their approaches.^[24] Putin even indicated that “Russia and Qatar will coordinate their actions in the gas sphere irrespective of whether a gas equivalent of OPEC is set up.”^[25]

Indeed, there was no Russian-Qatari agreement about working to create a gas cartel. Instead, a far more modest agreement was reached on protecting investments in each other’s countries.^[26] In addition, Russian presidential aide Sergei Prikhodko noted that Russian companies, including Gazprom, Lukoil, and RUSAL, sought investment opportunities in Qatar.^[27] Lukoil and Qatar Petroleum signed an MOU on “possible joint activities” in Qatar.^[28] Qatari-Russian military-technical cooperation was also discussed, though no specific agreements were announced.^[29] Shortly after Putin’s visit, Russian sources expressed the hope that Qatar would purchase Russian weapons. A Gazprom delegation visited Qatar in March 2007 to discuss cooperation in the oil and gas spheres with Qatar Petroleum, Qatargas, and the Qatar State Investment Agency.^[30]

In April 2007, the annual meeting of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF) took place in Qatar. The Russian delegation was led by Industry and Energy Minister Viktor Khristenko. While some Russians seemed eager to promote a gas cartel, Khristenko was more circumspect. He noted that this would not be agreed upon at the Doha meeting, and “dismissed European” fears about this.^[31] There did not appear to be any differences between Russia and Qatar on this issue. In other words, Moscow portrayed itself as interested in exploring coordination in the gas sphere with Qatar, but not as trying to push Doha on this issue.

Beginning with the March 2004 Putin-Emir Hamad telephone conversation about the Yandarbiyev affair and accelerating in 2007 with the Putin visit to Doha, Moscow has clearly been cultivating good relations with Qatar. Whether a natural gas cartel is actually formed or not, the desire to coordinate with Qatar in the natural gas sphere appears to be motivating Russia to do so. However, as many observers–including Russians–have pointed out, it would be extremely difficult (perhaps impossible) to create a cartel that could influence natural gas prices as effectively as OPEC influences oil prices. Most of the world’s natural gas (80 percent according to Valery Yazev, president of the Russian Gas Society) is sold under long-term contracts.^[32] This and the fact that most of the world’s natural gas is conveyed by pipelines that are expensive and cannot be rerouted when a pricing dispute occurs means that there is not a global market for natural gas, but many separate markets. In addition, the strong linkage that has so far existed between natural gas prices and oil prices also limits the ability of gas producers to set prices.

As Kommersant noted in April 2007, though, liquefied natural gas (LNG) amounted to only 6.9 percent of global gas consumption in 2005, but is set to rise rapidly.^[33] Qatar, which mainly ships its natural gas as LNG, could increase its exports tremendously. Qatar (or any other LNG producer) can sell its natural gas to any country with LNG re-gasification facilities, or countries that can build them–including those to which Russia either now exports or hopes to export gas via pipeline. What this means is that tiny Qatar, with its enormous LNG exporting capacity, may be in the best position to serve as an alternative to Russia as a gas supplier to any country with a coastline (and perhaps even to some that do not). As former Yukos director Alexander Temerko wrote, “only LNG technology has the potential to undermine a gas cartel.”^[34]

Moscow, then, has a strong incentive to court Qatar just for the defensive aim of persuading it not to undercut Russian gas exports. While Kommersant saw price coordination in the gas market as “impossible,” it declared that “coordinating actions for new pipeline and LNG projects undertaken by GECF countries is entirely viable. This would enable Russia, Qatar, and other GECF countries to hold out for higher gas prices from investors and consumers.”^[35] In other words, while Russia, Qatar, and other leading gas producers may not be able to directly set prices, their acting together to limit supply can serve to keep them higher than what they would be if the major producers all acted to maximize their exports.

Gazprom’s eagerness to invest in the Qatari gas sector, then, may stem not only from the desire to profit from it, but perhaps also from the hope of being in a better position to influence Qatar’s gas export policy in a direction that benefits Russia. Of course, even if Gazprom cannot influence Doha’s gas export policy, the profit motive alone is a strong enough incentive for Moscow to court Qatar into allowing Gazprom a role in its gas sector–as well as Lukoil and other Russian firms in its oil sector–and gain Qatar as a customer for the Russian arms industry.

Yet another reason for Moscow to court Qatar may have to do with the fact that the al-Jazeera news organization is located in Doha. As Kommersant put it, “Al-Jazeera TV-station commands a lot of respect in the Arab world. It makes broadcasts from Qatar, it is even financed by the Emir himself.”^[36] Moscow may hope that good Russian-Qatari relations will result in more positive (or at least, less negative) coverage of Russia by al-Jazeera than if ties between Moscow and Doha are poor.

Qatar, of course, also has reason to seek good relations with Russia. To begin with, it wants to avoid another Yandarbiyev episode; nor is it averse to earning more from its gas exports rather than less. Moreover, receiving a visit from Putin does indeed “boost the prestige of the small Arab country,” as Kommersant bluntly put it.^[37] Further, improving relations with Russia fits into Qatar’s overall foreign policy of attempting to maximize its number of friends and minimize its number of enemies. Qatar, for example, is allied to the United States, but also seeks to curry favor with public opinion in the Arab and Muslim world through playing host to al-Jazeera. Improving relations with Russia easily fits into this pattern.

What, though, can Moscow hope to gain from its relationship with Qatar? One important gain is that Qatar has not publicly played host to any other high-level Chechen opposition figures since Yandarbiyev’s assassination. Whether Doha will do so in the future is uncertain, but appears unlikely. On the other hand, Qatar-based al-Jazeera has not halted its critical coverage of Russia over the Chechen issue. Shortly before Putin visited Doha, for example, al-Jazeera ridiculed Russian claims that its offer of amnesty to Chechen rebels had been a success.^[38] Doha would undoubtedly respond to any Russian complaints about this by arguing that al-Jazeera is an independent media outlet which Qatar does not control. Yet while Qatar may be too intimidated to aid the Chechen cause after the Yandarbiyev episode, it certainly does not want to be seen by Arab and Muslim public opinion as supporting Russian policy there either. Permitting al-Jazeera to continue criticizing Russian policy in Chechnya allows Qatar to be seen as supporting the Chechen cause in the Muslim world, but to deny plausibly that it is actually doing so to Russia.

The possibility of cooperating with Qatar in the gas realm (as well as in trade and investment more broadly), of course, appears to be uppermost in Moscow’s concern about Doha. Like Russia, Qatar has not ruled out either creating a gas cartel or some looser form of coordination. This would certainly be of interest to Qatar if it served to increase its profits. On the other hand, Qatar is highly unlikely to oblige Russia by becoming the principal gas cartel member that reduces or limits its own production as Saudi Arabia does in OPEC. Nor is Qatar likely to forego increasing its gas production or expanding the number of customers it sells to for Russia’s benefit.

However, Qatar will likely avoid open confrontation with Russia on gas issues. Instead, it will make a show of consulting Russia and other gas producers. Perhaps it will allow Gazprom a stake in the Qatari gas and oil sector. Bringing the company into a partnership on gas could create an important constituency in Russia that would benefit from increased Qatari gas exports even at the expense of Russian gas sales. Another way to build such a constituency would be to buy Russian weapons, thus bringing the politically powerful Russian oil and arms industries into advocating good relations between Russia and Qatar despite any differences they may have over gas issues. Yet another possibility is that Qatar may simply engage in prolonged talks with Russia over these and other forms of cooperation. Even if reaching agreements proves elusive, just the hope for them could provide sufficient incentive for Moscow to behave politely toward Doha. In the meantime, the Qatari security services have undoubtedly been keeping a much closer watch on the activities of Russian officials than they were the day that Yandarbiyev was assassinated.

The bottom line for Russian-Qatari relations is that despite Qatar’s small and Russia’s vast size, Doha with its growing LNG export capacity is more of a threat to Moscow with its diminishing gas export capacity than vice versa.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !