Daily Archives: October 9, 2006

USA Today’s Devastating Condemnation of Putin’s Russia

Today’s USA Today contains a brilliant editorial succinctly obliterating the Putin regime. This should be a model for all Western papers worldwide, who should speak with one voice in defense of their fallen colleague.

As democracy dies in Russia, another journalist is killed

On Saturday, an outspoken Russian journalist named Anna Politkovskaya, 48, was murdered, execution style, as she stepped out of the elevator in her apartment building. The trademark report she was preparing for today’s edition of her newspaper, Novaya Gazeta- about alleged Russian war crimes in Chechnya, sure to anger the Kremlin yet again – will be published only in part. Some of the information died with her.

Politkovskaya’s murder was at least the 12th killing of journalist who had angered the Kremlin during President Vladimir Putin’s six years in power. The Kremlin response was eloquent: As of late Sunday it was silent, even as the United States expressed shock and the European Union called the crime “heinous.”

Though nobody can make a direct link to the Kremlin, it is emblematic of the Stalin-lite control Putin has gradually wielded. The former KGB operative is systematically strangling the nascent Russian democracy in its crib. Some elements:

Silencing media critics. Putin has gradually closed down or taken state control of the most important media, particularly TV and radio. Politkovskaya’s murder sends a further chilling message to those who would be brave or outspoken. It is likely to increase the timidity and self-censorship that are becoming a media hallmark.

Squelching rivals Two years ago, Putin tightened his grip on parliament and the regions by changing the rules. Governors are no longer elected: They are appointed by Putin. Independents are virtually barred from standing for seats. Wealthy oil oligarch Mihail Khodorkovsky, meanwhile, became a poster child for what happens when businessmen become too independent. After he began taking an interest in politics, his assets were seized, his company emasculated and he is imprisoned.

Menacing the neighbors. Recently, the former Soviet republic of Georgia arrested, then released, four Russian military officers on charges of spying. Since then, Moscow has been playing hardball. It has cut transportation and other links and has begun expelling Georgians. Georgia’s U.S.-educated leader, Mikhail Saakashvili, wants to join NATO and intensify integration with the West. Preventing this in Georgia, the Ukraine and elsewhere is part of Putin’s plan to bring Russia’s “near abroad” back into a smothering embrace

There is a counterargument that Russian officials use often. It goes like this: After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia descended more into anarchy than democracy. The only way to bring some order was with the hand of a firm leader, even if that means some temporary anti-democratic measures.

Many Russians buy that argument: Putin has soaring popularity ratings.

In that, though, he equals the murderous former dictator Joseph Stalin. When Stalin died in 1953, the citizens he brutalized wept and the country came to a standstill for days. No doubt that’s something Politkovskaya would point out were she still alive. Besides bravely exposing the truth of what is happening in Chechnya, she wrote a book critical of Putin. Her newspaper has offered a reward of about $1 million for information on her killing.

There is little hope it will be claimed.

USA Today’s Devastating Condemnation of Putin’s Russia

Today’s USA Today contains a brilliant editorial succinctly obliterating the Putin regime. This should be a model for all Western papers worldwide, who should speak with one voice in defense of their fallen colleague.

As democracy dies in Russia, another journalist is killed

On Saturday, an outspoken Russian journalist named Anna Politkovskaya, 48, was murdered, execution style, as she stepped out of the elevator in her apartment building. The trademark report she was preparing for today’s edition of her newspaper, Novaya Gazeta- about alleged Russian war crimes in Chechnya, sure to anger the Kremlin yet again – will be published only in part. Some of the information died with her.

Politkovskaya’s murder was at least the 12th killing of journalist who had angered the Kremlin during President Vladimir Putin’s six years in power. The Kremlin response was eloquent: As of late Sunday it was silent, even as the United States expressed shock and the European Union called the crime “heinous.”

Though nobody can make a direct link to the Kremlin, it is emblematic of the Stalin-lite control Putin has gradually wielded. The former KGB operative is systematically strangling the nascent Russian democracy in its crib. Some elements:

Silencing media critics. Putin has gradually closed down or taken state control of the most important media, particularly TV and radio. Politkovskaya’s murder sends a further chilling message to those who would be brave or outspoken. It is likely to increase the timidity and self-censorship that are becoming a media hallmark.

Squelching rivals Two years ago, Putin tightened his grip on parliament and the regions by changing the rules. Governors are no longer elected: They are appointed by Putin. Independents are virtually barred from standing for seats. Wealthy oil oligarch Mihail Khodorkovsky, meanwhile, became a poster child for what happens when businessmen become too independent. After he began taking an interest in politics, his assets were seized, his company emasculated and he is imprisoned.

Menacing the neighbors. Recently, the former Soviet republic of Georgia arrested, then released, four Russian military officers on charges of spying. Since then, Moscow has been playing hardball. It has cut transportation and other links and has begun expelling Georgians. Georgia’s U.S.-educated leader, Mikhail Saakashvili, wants to join NATO and intensify integration with the West. Preventing this in Georgia, the Ukraine and elsewhere is part of Putin’s plan to bring Russia’s “near abroad” back into a smothering embrace

There is a counterargument that Russian officials use often. It goes like this: After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia descended more into anarchy than democracy. The only way to bring some order was with the hand of a firm leader, even if that means some temporary anti-democratic measures.

Many Russians buy that argument: Putin has soaring popularity ratings.

In that, though, he equals the murderous former dictator Joseph Stalin. When Stalin died in 1953, the citizens he brutalized wept and the country came to a standstill for days. No doubt that’s something Politkovskaya would point out were she still alive. Besides bravely exposing the truth of what is happening in Chechnya, she wrote a book critical of Putin. Her newspaper has offered a reward of about $1 million for information on her killing.

There is little hope it will be claimed.

USA Today’s Devastating Condemnation of Putin’s Russia

Today’s USA Today contains a brilliant editorial succinctly obliterating the Putin regime. This should be a model for all Western papers worldwide, who should speak with one voice in defense of their fallen colleague.

As democracy dies in Russia, another journalist is killed

On Saturday, an outspoken Russian journalist named Anna Politkovskaya, 48, was murdered, execution style, as she stepped out of the elevator in her apartment building. The trademark report she was preparing for today’s edition of her newspaper, Novaya Gazeta- about alleged Russian war crimes in Chechnya, sure to anger the Kremlin yet again – will be published only in part. Some of the information died with her.

Politkovskaya’s murder was at least the 12th killing of journalist who had angered the Kremlin during President Vladimir Putin’s six years in power. The Kremlin response was eloquent: As of late Sunday it was silent, even as the United States expressed shock and the European Union called the crime “heinous.”

Though nobody can make a direct link to the Kremlin, it is emblematic of the Stalin-lite control Putin has gradually wielded. The former KGB operative is systematically strangling the nascent Russian democracy in its crib. Some elements:

Silencing media critics. Putin has gradually closed down or taken state control of the most important media, particularly TV and radio. Politkovskaya’s murder sends a further chilling message to those who would be brave or outspoken. It is likely to increase the timidity and self-censorship that are becoming a media hallmark.

Squelching rivals Two years ago, Putin tightened his grip on parliament and the regions by changing the rules. Governors are no longer elected: They are appointed by Putin. Independents are virtually barred from standing for seats. Wealthy oil oligarch Mihail Khodorkovsky, meanwhile, became a poster child for what happens when businessmen become too independent. After he began taking an interest in politics, his assets were seized, his company emasculated and he is imprisoned.

Menacing the neighbors. Recently, the former Soviet republic of Georgia arrested, then released, four Russian military officers on charges of spying. Since then, Moscow has been playing hardball. It has cut transportation and other links and has begun expelling Georgians. Georgia’s U.S.-educated leader, Mikhail Saakashvili, wants to join NATO and intensify integration with the West. Preventing this in Georgia, the Ukraine and elsewhere is part of Putin’s plan to bring Russia’s “near abroad” back into a smothering embrace

There is a counterargument that Russian officials use often. It goes like this: After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia descended more into anarchy than democracy. The only way to bring some order was with the hand of a firm leader, even if that means some temporary anti-democratic measures.

Many Russians buy that argument: Putin has soaring popularity ratings.

In that, though, he equals the murderous former dictator Joseph Stalin. When Stalin died in 1953, the citizens he brutalized wept and the country came to a standstill for days. No doubt that’s something Politkovskaya would point out were she still alive. Besides bravely exposing the truth of what is happening in Chechnya, she wrote a book critical of Putin. Her newspaper has offered a reward of about $1 million for information on her killing.

There is little hope it will be claimed.

USA Today’s Devastating Condemnation of Putin’s Russia

Today’s USA Today contains a brilliant editorial succinctly obliterating the Putin regime. This should be a model for all Western papers worldwide, who should speak with one voice in defense of their fallen colleague.

As democracy dies in Russia, another journalist is killed

On Saturday, an outspoken Russian journalist named Anna Politkovskaya, 48, was murdered, execution style, as she stepped out of the elevator in her apartment building. The trademark report she was preparing for today’s edition of her newspaper, Novaya Gazeta- about alleged Russian war crimes in Chechnya, sure to anger the Kremlin yet again – will be published only in part. Some of the information died with her.

Politkovskaya’s murder was at least the 12th killing of journalist who had angered the Kremlin during President Vladimir Putin’s six years in power. The Kremlin response was eloquent: As of late Sunday it was silent, even as the United States expressed shock and the European Union called the crime “heinous.”

Though nobody can make a direct link to the Kremlin, it is emblematic of the Stalin-lite control Putin has gradually wielded. The former KGB operative is systematically strangling the nascent Russian democracy in its crib. Some elements:

Silencing media critics. Putin has gradually closed down or taken state control of the most important media, particularly TV and radio. Politkovskaya’s murder sends a further chilling message to those who would be brave or outspoken. It is likely to increase the timidity and self-censorship that are becoming a media hallmark.

Squelching rivals Two years ago, Putin tightened his grip on parliament and the regions by changing the rules. Governors are no longer elected: They are appointed by Putin. Independents are virtually barred from standing for seats. Wealthy oil oligarch Mihail Khodorkovsky, meanwhile, became a poster child for what happens when businessmen become too independent. After he began taking an interest in politics, his assets were seized, his company emasculated and he is imprisoned.

Menacing the neighbors. Recently, the former Soviet republic of Georgia arrested, then released, four Russian military officers on charges of spying. Since then, Moscow has been playing hardball. It has cut transportation and other links and has begun expelling Georgians. Georgia’s U.S.-educated leader, Mikhail Saakashvili, wants to join NATO and intensify integration with the West. Preventing this in Georgia, the Ukraine and elsewhere is part of Putin’s plan to bring Russia’s “near abroad” back into a smothering embrace

There is a counterargument that Russian officials use often. It goes like this: After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia descended more into anarchy than democracy. The only way to bring some order was with the hand of a firm leader, even if that means some temporary anti-democratic measures.

Many Russians buy that argument: Putin has soaring popularity ratings.

In that, though, he equals the murderous former dictator Joseph Stalin. When Stalin died in 1953, the citizens he brutalized wept and the country came to a standstill for days. No doubt that’s something Politkovskaya would point out were she still alive. Besides bravely exposing the truth of what is happening in Chechnya, she wrote a book critical of Putin. Her newspaper has offered a reward of about $1 million for information on her killing.

There is little hope it will be claimed.

USA Today’s Devastating Condemnation of Putin’s Russia

Today’s USA Today contains a brilliant editorial succinctly obliterating the Putin regime. This should be a model for all Western papers worldwide, who should speak with one voice in defense of their fallen colleague.

As democracy dies in Russia, another journalist is killed

On Saturday, an outspoken Russian journalist named Anna Politkovskaya, 48, was murdered, execution style, as she stepped out of the elevator in her apartment building. The trademark report she was preparing for today’s edition of her newspaper, Novaya Gazeta- about alleged Russian war crimes in Chechnya, sure to anger the Kremlin yet again – will be published only in part. Some of the information died with her.

Politkovskaya’s murder was at least the 12th killing of journalist who had angered the Kremlin during President Vladimir Putin’s six years in power. The Kremlin response was eloquent: As of late Sunday it was silent, even as the United States expressed shock and the European Union called the crime “heinous.”

Though nobody can make a direct link to the Kremlin, it is emblematic of the Stalin-lite control Putin has gradually wielded. The former KGB operative is systematically strangling the nascent Russian democracy in its crib. Some elements:

Silencing media critics. Putin has gradually closed down or taken state control of the most important media, particularly TV and radio. Politkovskaya’s murder sends a further chilling message to those who would be brave or outspoken. It is likely to increase the timidity and self-censorship that are becoming a media hallmark.

Squelching rivals Two years ago, Putin tightened his grip on parliament and the regions by changing the rules. Governors are no longer elected: They are appointed by Putin. Independents are virtually barred from standing for seats. Wealthy oil oligarch Mihail Khodorkovsky, meanwhile, became a poster child for what happens when businessmen become too independent. After he began taking an interest in politics, his assets were seized, his company emasculated and he is imprisoned.

Menacing the neighbors. Recently, the former Soviet republic of Georgia arrested, then released, four Russian military officers on charges of spying. Since then, Moscow has been playing hardball. It has cut transportation and other links and has begun expelling Georgians. Georgia’s U.S.-educated leader, Mikhail Saakashvili, wants to join NATO and intensify integration with the West. Preventing this in Georgia, the Ukraine and elsewhere is part of Putin’s plan to bring Russia’s “near abroad” back into a smothering embrace

There is a counterargument that Russian officials use often. It goes like this: After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia descended more into anarchy than democracy. The only way to bring some order was with the hand of a firm leader, even if that means some temporary anti-democratic measures.

Many Russians buy that argument: Putin has soaring popularity ratings.

In that, though, he equals the murderous former dictator Joseph Stalin. When Stalin died in 1953, the citizens he brutalized wept and the country came to a standstill for days. No doubt that’s something Politkovskaya would point out were she still alive. Besides bravely exposing the truth of what is happening in Chechnya, she wrote a book critical of Putin. Her newspaper has offered a reward of about $1 million for information on her killing.

There is little hope it will be claimed.

The Chickens Come Home to Roost

Freedom of speech isn’t all it killed, my dear lady. It also killed Russia’s future. And how did hit get the opportunity to do so? How many Russians voted to fill its halls with proud KGB spies?

Now, Russia Goes After Lithuania

As if Russia’s attack on the sovereignty of Georgia were not enough, it is now being reported that Russia has attempted to infiltrate the Lithuanian government to force it to back Russia in the dispute with Georgia, using Russia’s diplomatic service in Lithuania as cover. Just as in Georgia, the ham-handed Neo-Soviet effort has been filed and the offending “diplomat” expelled from the country. Russia’s aggressive, provocatory, imperialist conduct has exploded like a tsuanami in recent days, and we are suddenly faced with a full-fledged cold war with the Neo-Soviet Union. One thing’s for sure: The world can’t say it wasn’t warned by La Russophobe.

The Moscow News reports:

Lithuania expelled a high-ranking Russian diplomat on Sunday for suspected spying, the independent Baltic News Service (BNS) reported, quoting unnamed sources. A Foreign Ministry spokesman declined immediate comment on the report but invited reporters to what he called an informal briefing on the issue on Monday. A spokesman for the Russian embassy in Vilnius also refused comment, the Reuters news agency reported. BNS said the sources told it that the Vilnius-based diplomat had been ordered to leave Lithuania on suspicion of espionage and “seeking to influence Lithuania’s determination to support Georgia amid its conflict with Moscow”. A diplomatic crisis between Georgia and Russia erupted last month after Georgian law enforcement officers detained several Russian officers on suspicion of spying for Moscow. The suspected spies were later handed over to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. On Lithuanian state television, Foreign Minister Petras Vaitiekunas said he would “neither confirm nor deny” the expulsion report. The head of Lithuania’s Institute of International Relations and Political Science, Raimundas Lopata, hinted at knowledge of the affair, telling state television: “Lithuania remains a state protecting its national interests, which in this given case are related to Lithuania’s support of Georgia.” Lopata noted that this was not the first case of its kind. In 2004, Lithuania ordered out the Russian military attache and two other diplomats for alleged intelligence activities. Moscow retaliated by expelling the Lithuanian military attache. The small Baltic state of Lithuania was part of the Soviet Union before gaining independence from Moscow in 1991, but its road to statehood was more troubled than that of other former Soviet republics. An earlier independence bid the previous year was throttled by a Soviet economic blockade and 13 unarmed Lithuanian civilians were killed in early 1991 while defending the Vilnius TV tower from an attack by an armored KGB unit.

GEORGIA WINS!!

Pro-West President Mikhail Saakashvili has won a resounding victory in recent municipal elections in Tbilisi, declared free and fair by Western observers and held in the middle of a massive assault on Georgia by Russia. The people of Georgia have poked their finger right in the eye of Russia. Congratulations! Georgia is emerging from the darkness of Russian imperialism and we must stand beside her as she completes her brave and perilous journey. Following close on the heels of Estonia’s election of a pro-West president, this deals a devastating setback to Russia’s imperial hopes in the former USSR. Just as America was able to hold democratic elections in the middle of the Civil War, Georgia has now proved its own remarkable determination and resiliency to build a new kind of life beyond the evil clutches of the Kremlin.

Civil Georgia reports:

With all votes already counted in Tbilisi, official results give President Saakashvili’s National Movement party 34 seats out of 37 in the capital city’s council (Sakrebulo). The remaining seats will be distributed among parties that received at least 4% of the total votes;however, in practice this provision might be invalid. According to the rule on the distribution of seats among the parties, garnering more than 4% does not automatically guarantee that the party will have a seat in the Sakrebulo. The ruling National Movement party got a total of 66,42% of votes in Tbilisi’s ten constituencies, followed by a coalition of the Republican and Conservative opposition parties with 12% of votes.

The opposition Labor and Industry Will Save Georgia parties garnered 10,67% and 6.09%, respectively and ex-Foreign Minister Salome Zourabichvili’s party Georgia’s Way – 2,7%.

The ruling party separately won the polls in all ten of the two- and three-mandate constituencies as well, which automatically gives it the 25 majoritarian seats in the Tbilisi Sakrebulo. The ruling party will be given a further nine seats according to the percentage of votes it received in the party-list, proportional contest.

The distribution of the remaining three seats might become a source of controversy.

A coalition of Republican and Conservative parties and the Labor Party each have at least one guaranteed seat in the Tbilisi Sakrebulo. But the Industrialist Party, although it has overcome the 4% threshold, might not get a seat.

The provision of the Election Code that defines the rules for municipal elections in the capital city says that “Only those parties that garner no less than 4% of ballots cast, will be able to gain proportional mandates.”

The next provision of the law defines how to calculate the number of mandates each party will receive – which translates into the number of seats in the Sakrebulo. This calculation is made based on the number of votes cast for that party as a proportion of the total number of votes cast for parties that overcome the 4% threshold.

As a result of this calculation, the Industrialist Party should be given 0,7 mandates in the Sakrebulo. But the rule also says that this figure is then rounded down to the nearest whole number to determine the number of seats each party is given. For the Industrialists, 0,7 mandates translates to 0 seats. “This rule of calculation is so complicated and unclear that we might even be left out of the Sakrebulo, although we have overcome the 4% threshold,” MP Zurab Tkemaladze, the leader of the Industrialists party said.

The issue will most likely trigger controversy and debates, because it was a political commitment of the political forces that each party overcoming 4% should have a seat in Sakrebulo, while in practice this commitment is overturned by the law.CEC says that election results in the provincial constituencies are not yet available.Below are the election results in each of the Tbilisi’s constituency:

Three-mandate constituencies:

1. Saburtalo
• National Movement – 57,9%
• Coalition of Republicans and Conservatives – 17,1%
• Labor Party – 10,7%
• Industrialists – 8.1%
• Georgia’s Way – 4,4%

2. Isani
• National Movement – 71,7%
• Labor Party – 10,3%
• Coalition of Republicans and Conservatives – 10,1
• Industrialists – 4,2%
• Georgia’s Way – 1,9%

3. Samgori
• National Movement – 73,5%
• Labor Party – 9,9%
• Coalition of Republicans and Conservatives – 8,4%
• Industrialists – 3,6%
• Georgia’s Way – 1,7%
• Party of National Ideology – 0,2%

4. Nadzaladevi
• National Movement – 67,5%
• Labor Party – 12,7%
• Coalition of Republicans and Conservatives – 11,3%
• Industrialists – 4,5%
• Georgia’s Way – 2,2%

5. Gldani
• National Movement – 68,8%
• Coalition of Republicans and Conservatives – 14,1%
• Labor Party – 10,5%
• Industrialists – 3,2%
• Georgia’s Way – 1,5%

Two-mandate constituencies:

1. Mtatsminda
• National Movement – 58,7%
• Coalition of Republicans and Conservatives – 12,4%
• Labor Party – 10,9%
• Industrialists – 10,5%
• Georgia’s Way – 5,3%

2. Vake
• National Movement – 59,4%
• Coalition of Republicans and Conservatives – 13,1
• Labor Party – 9,4%
• Industrialists – 12,7%
• Georgia’s Way – 4,6%

3. Krtsanisi
• National Movement – 77%
• Labor Party – 8,4%
• Coalition of Republicans and Conservatives 5,7%
• Industrialists – 5,1%
• Georgia’s Way – 1,6%

4. Chugureti
• National Movement – 64,3%
• Labor Party – 12 7%
• Coalition of Republicans and Conservatives – 10,9%
• Industrialists – 6,9%
• Georgia’s Way- 3,1%
• Party of National Ideology

5. Didube
• National Movement – 60,8%
• Coalition of Republicans and Conservatives – 14,7%
• Labor Party – 11,3%
• Industrialists – 6,1%
• Georgia’s Way – 3,3%

Germany Turns on Russia

Remember when it was being reported what an expert Vladimir Putin was in German culture and language, and how this would give him lots of influence in Germany? Poppycock. Germany turns against Russia just like all civilized nations are doing, as the International Herald Tribune reports:

Reacting to the assassination of a crusading journalist in Moscow, German politicians Sunday called on Chancellor Angela Merkel to raise more forcefully the human-rights situation in Russia when she meets Tuesday with President Vladimir Putin in Dresden. “We have to keep raising human rights with Russia,” said Herta Däubler- Gmelin, a Social Democrat and chairwoman of the human-rights committee in the Bundestag, or Parliament. “We do raise it, but we have to do more.”

The assassinated journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, who was repeatedly criticized by the Russian authorities for her reporting on the war in Chechnya, had received several awards in Germany, including the Leipzig Prize for the Freedom and Future of Media in 2005.

Her death has sparked worldwide reactions of sympathy and outrage, but also criticism of Putin, particularly over the way he has muzzled the press and opposed Politkovskaya’s independent- minded professionalism. Until now, few issues have brought together opposition voices inside Russia and the government and human-rights organizations outside the country. “Anna Politkovskaya was one of the most important human-rights defenders in Russia today,” said Thomas Hammarberg, commissioner for human rights at the Council of Europe. “While not everyone agreed with her views, no one questioned her professionalism, courage and personal dedication to revealing the truth about a controversial issue.”

Finland, which holds the EU’s rotating presidency, condemned the killing, calling it a heinous crime. “On behalf of the EU, the presidency expresses its deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Anna Politkovskaya,” the European Union’s Finnish presidency said in a statement. It urged an investigation into the “heinous crime.”

The German Foreign Ministry declined to comment, saying that Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier would issue an official statement Monday and that the government had yet to issue an official reaction. The foreign ministry is at present preparing a new “Ostpolitik,” or eastern policy, with Russia aimed at drawing it closer to Europe, primarily through energy and economic contacts.

Other German politicians, however, were quick to react to Politkovskaya’s murder. “Obviously, the situation in Russia is deteriorating and also Russian foreign policy,” said Rheinhard Bütikofer, a leader of the opposition Greens party. “Vis-à-vis Georgia, Russia is behaving in a very, almost unbelievably arrogant manner,” said Bütikofer, referring to the Kremlin’s confrontation with Georgia and its decision to sever all transport and postal links. “This is a clear indication that there has to be a more open and more clear-cut language from the West, including Germany and including particularly the chancellery if we just don’t want to be standing by. The Petersburg Dialogue provides this opportunity.”

The Guardian on Russia’s "New Racism"

The Guardian reports on the pandemic racism that is sweeping Russia, being fanned by the Kremlin as a basis for whipping up imperial hysteria against Georgia so as to justify taking all possible measures to prevent it from joining NATO and the freedom of the West. The Guardian draws parallels to German fascism; perhaps what will ultimately distinguish the Neo-Soviet Union from the USSR is fascism replacing communism.

Pogroms, commonplace in Russia from 1880 to 1921, have started again. In the past such attacks focused on the Jewish community, but now they are targeting people from the Caucasus, central Asia and Mongolia, and Roms. Until this spring murders of non-Slavs (33 in the first nine months of 2006) were just part of the everyday xenophobia of modern Russia. But now things have taken a turn for the worse.

In May, in the town of Kharagun (in the Chita region), fighting broke out between Russians and Azerbaijanis, causing one death. A month later, in the village of Targuis (Irkutsk) an anti-Asian pogrom ended with 75 Chinese being driven out. A few days later the inhabitants of Salsk (Rostov) turned on the local Dagestani population, resulting in another fatality. From the far east to the south a wave of hatred is sweeping through the Russian Federation, where 50 nationalities coexist along with ethnic Russians and 17 million immigrants. “Ethnic intolerance, fear and hatred of immigrants have increased so much since the second Chechen war [1999] that Russia has become the most xenophobic country in Europe,” the sociologist Lev Goudko says.

For five days from August 31 to September 4, Kondopoga, an industrial town near the Finnish border, was the scene of an orgy of anti-Caucasian hatred, with violent demonstrators chanting racist slogans, starting fires and looting shops. An unruly mob vented its rage on anything belonging to the “chorny” (blacks), attacking shops, garages and cars with stones, bottles and Molotov cocktails, while demanding their immediate deportation.

It all started with a fight between Russians and Caucasians at an Azeri-run café. There is not much to do in this gloomy town of 37,000, some 1,000km from Moscow. The only jobs are in a cellulose plant. On the evening of August 29 some young Russians celebrating a new flat got into an argument with a Caucasian waiter and his boss. Blows were exchanged and the two Caucasians appealed to their fellow countrymen for help. A call to the police went unheeded. In the subsequent fighting two Russians, Sergey Usin and Griogry Slezov, were stabbed to death.

The locals reacted promptly and two days later a crowd 2,000-strong gathered in the town centre, yelling: “The blacks killed our boys.” Militants from Moscow and St Petersburg, assisted by neo-Nazis, organised the demonstration, led by an ultra-nationalist group, the Movement against Illegal Immigration (DPNI). The extremists aim to “rid Russia” of its “chorny”, give precedence to ethnic Russians and send illegal immigrants packing. They make no distinction between foreigners – Azeris and Armenians – and citizens of the Russian Federation such as Chechens and Dagestanis. Everyone must go.

In Kondopoga foreigners account for just 1% of the population. As elsewhere in Russia a few Caucasians sell fruit and vegetables in the market and it duly became the prime target for the furious demonstrators, who overturned stands and looted shops. Seized by panic, 200 Caucasians took flight, with dozens of Chechens seeking refuge 50km outside the town.

The arrival of the special forces on September 3 made little difference. The next day a fire started at a sports academy run by a Chechen trainer and more racist graffiti appeared in the town. Yielding to pressure, the mayor, Anatoli Pantchenkov, offered to allow ethnic Russians to rent stalls previously run by Caucasians. The governor of Karelia, Sergei Katanandov, went further and denounced “these young people from the Caucasus and elsewhere” who behave “as if they owned the place”. He added: “Either they keep a low profile or they go.”

This view soon prevailed in the press, among politicians and, of course, ultra-nationalists. If trouble had broken out in the town it was not due to intolerance, but rather “social problems”. The Caucasians, everyone agreed, provoked the Russian population. There was much talk of their “ostentatious riches” and the regional governor referred to their “Mercedes travelling at breakneck speed”. Resentment also focused on their “criminal activity” and bribes paid to the police.

During five days of madness in Kondopoga not a single official, politician or cultural figure condemned the violence. National newspapers stirred up resentment. “The real reason for all this is that werewolves in uniform have allowed newcomers to behave as if they owned the place, without the slightest respect for local people,” wrote Izvestia.

However, it is not clear whether events in Kondopoga would have gone so far without the extremists. All the television channels showed young skinheads in the thick of the violence and Alexander Belov, the DPNI leader, yelling at the crowd through a megaphone. A few days later he organised a press conference with an MP, Nikolai Kuryanovich. The two advocated “complete cleansing [of] criminal elements . . . as the president promised”, a reference to Vladimir Putin’s remark at the start of the second war in Chechnya: “We will waste them. Even when they are on the lavatory.”

Because of his activities in Kondopoga, Belov claims to have been approached by the new Union of Trust party, one of whose leaders is the speaker in the Federation Council (upper house). Mark Ournov, a political analyst, says: “Organisations such as the DPNI could never survive without the backing of part of Russia’s political elite. There are differences of opinion, but some people think this sort of organisation is useful to the regime.”

For almost six years far-right organisations such as Slavic Union, Russian National Unity and the National-socialist party have operated openly. On November 4, 2005 – now celebrated as national unity day in accordance with the Kremlin’s wishes – more than 1,000 neo-Nazis paraded through Moscow, chanting slogans attacking the “Caucasian mafia” and “Tajik drug dealers”.

In Russia such organisations enjoy freedoms denied to NGOs, which have become subject to ever more regulation. In the centre of Moscow, a step away from the Tretyakov gallery, the bookshop of the Foundation for the Conservation of Slav literature is flogging a new bestseller, a eulogy of Adolf Hitler entitled What really happened on June 22, 1941? [the start of the German attack on the Soviet Union]. In June MPs invited its author, Alexander Ussovski, to present his work to the Duma. On the bookshop’s counter is a pile of the latest edition of the List of Hidden Jews, which includes the heroine of Ukraine’s orange revolution, Yulia Timoshenko, the human rights campaigner Dmitri Sakharov and General de Gaulle.

On the internet there are innumerable neo-Nazi sites, ranging from the forum of the church of Adolf Hitler to the national-socialist chapter of the Slavic Union. Internet chat sites are very successful, with people exchanging excited messages about the future of the “great Russian nation” and the exact design of SS-division Totenkopf’s colours.

It was while they were browsing websites such as these that the three young men behind the racist attack on the market in Cherkizovo, a suburb in northwest Moscow, on August 21 found instructions for making the bomb they planted in the Asian part of the market, killing 12 people. The bombers were students. They did not belong to any extremist organisations but read large amounts of neo-Nazi literature. Under police questioning, they admitted to wanting to punish “the area’s countless illegal immigrants”. On September 12 police arrested their ringleader, Nikita Senioukov, 18, a trainee at the Moscow police academy. It emerged that in April he had stabbed to death Viguen Abramiants, 17, in cold blood at Pushkinskaya metro station in central Moscow.

Few people express much concern about racist murders or the neo-Nazi craze. If we are to believe the Russian press, “fascism is in vogue”. The celebrity magazine Caravan recently put a picture of singer Irina Allegrova in SS uniform on its front page and apparently no one objected. In August Russian Newsweek ran a feature on “underground fascist culture”, embodied among others by Tesak (a nickname that means big knife), who produces sickeningly violent video-clips. Newsweek described him as the “Leni Riefenstahl of Russian Nazis”.

Among the videos on Tesak’s website is one showing the (fictitious) hanging of a “Tajik drug dealer” by hooded thugs, who then cut up the corpse and burn it. Under the heading “Do something practical” the site offers a pro-forma letter for budding informers, encouraging those spotting an illegal on their block to tell the police.

Dmitri Demushkin is one of Russia’s neo-Nazi ideologists. His own movement, the Slavic Union, has almost 5,000 members in the Moscow area alone. Thirtyish, with frizzy hair, suit and tie, he does not fit the skinhead stereotype, presenting himself as a “consultant for the presidential administration”. However, his flat has been raided twice in recent months and he has been denied a permit to organise concerts. Otherwise he is unruffled, claiming that “instructions have been issued at the highest level that I should not be disturbed”. He adds that he has “sympathisers all over the place, at the Kremlin and the Central Bank, at Rosoboronexport [which handles arms sales] and the FSB [the KGB’s successor], with the public prosecutor and the police”. He even has supporters in the Russian Orthodox church.

He is sure “national-socialist ideas will triumph in Russia”. He likens Russia now to the Weimar Republic. Demushkin maintains that “increasing numbers of young people think highly of Adolf Hitler”. Events such as the Kondopoga pogrom “are certain to recur. Lots of groups are working on it”, adding: “We were the ones that started it. Ordinary people support us. The authorities will have to accept our ideas or go.”

Nevertheless it seems ironic that far-right ideas should enjoy such widespread success in a country that paid so high a price – 27 million dead – in the war against fascism. “Many people do not connect these ideas with the Nazis and there are plenty more who don’t think Hitler did anything wrong, apart from attacking Russia,” says Alexander Verkhovski of the Sova NGO, which studies xenophobia. Nor is the craze for Nazi symbols a recent thing, he points out. A popular TV drama at the end of the 1970s, 17 Moments of Spring, told the story of a Soviet spy, Stirlitz, working undercover for the Nazis. His Waffen-SS uniform looked so smart it started a craze. Verkhovski recalls: “In school playgrounds all the kids would play at being Stirlitz, doing Nazi salutes.”

Putin the Racist Maniac Shows his True Colors

A Moscow Times editorial exposes the horror of electing a KGB spy president:

President Vladimir Putin on Thursday made an astounding statement for the leader of a multi-ethnic federative state. Putin called on regional authorities to “protect the interests of Russian manufacturers and Russia’s native population” in the country’s outdoor markets. He cited recent ethnic violence in Kondopoga as evidence of the problems resulting from poor regulation and law enforcement in this area.

Putin did not name any particular ethnic group, but it is no secret that natives of the Caucasus, particularly Azeris, are responsible for the majority of trade in Russian outdoor markets. It was a conflict between an Azeri bartender and his Russian customers that ended so badly in a Kondopoga cafe in late August. Chechens — who purportedly provided protection for the Azeri-owned restaurant — stabbed two Russians to death. True, Azeris cannot be described as native to modern Russia, but more than a million of them live here, including hundreds of thousands who hold Russian passports.

Chechens, meanwhile, are the native population of Chechnya, a region that Russia has fought two wars to keep in the past 12 years.

Kondopoga’s native population is Karelian, as the town is located in the republic of Karelia, which first became part of Russia in 1721 and belonged to Finland between the two world wars. So which native population did Putin have in mind when he called for the cleaning up of the markets and the protection of the population’s interests?

Even if he was thinking primarily of Azeris, Chechens and Karelians when he made his speech to the council for national projects, that is not necessarily the way it will be heard. Recent events are more likely to conjure up thoughts of protecting Russia’s native population from the Georgians. This is the clear impression state television is giving as it reports about raids on businesses that police say are owned by Georgian criminal groups and shows the apprehension and deportation of illegal Georgian migrants.

Georgians are paying a high price for their president’s decision to arrest purported Russian spies, perhaps in hope that a heavy-handed Russian retaliation would force the West to side openly with Tbilisi in its struggle with pro-Moscow separatist regimes in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. But in its retaliation, the Kremlin’s zeal has reached far beyond Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and his regime. LR: Maybe he was just hoping to put the people who tried to subvert his country’s democracy in prison so they could do no further harm? And is there anything wrong with a small country looking for allies when being assaulted by a huge one?

The past few days have seen unprecedented harassment of individuals whose only crime was being a Georgian citizen or of being born in Georgia. Even the best-selling author Georgy Chkhartishvili, who writes under the pen name Boris Akunin, has complained of being targeted over his taxes.

This campaign of racial profiling and selective application of the law contains elements reminiscent of ethnic cleansing, with 132 Georgians being deported Friday, even though they account for only a fraction of all foreigners living here illegally.

Even more outrageously, Moscow police are demanding that schools provide them with lists of students with Georgian-sounding last names to help the authorities find Georgians who are living in Russia illegally.

All people, regardless of their ethnic background, should take a stand against this campaign and condemn the practice of racial profiling. Even those who are convinced they are safe because they are from the “right” ethnic background would do well to remember the words of Martin Niemoller, the anti-Nazi theologian who’s famous poem “First They Came …” ends with the sobering line, “When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.”

The Malignant Attacks by Russophile Lunatics Begin on Politkovskaya

Writing on his blog “Accidental Russophile,” crazed Kremlin apologist Wally Shedd launches an early attack on Anna Politkovskaya. Not even waiting for her corpse to grow cold, he claims that “while the BBC obituary applauds her for “honest journalism”, there have been critics of her writing and reporting who cite her for wholesale invention … or at the very least, distortion.”

His “evidence” of this “distortion” and “wholesale invention”? It’s a letter written to the Johnson’s Russia list by crazed Slavic nationalist Kirill Pankratov, published nowhere else and relying on exactly ZERO published accusations of inaccuracy against Anna, just his own “analysis.” Who is Pankratov? How is he in a position to know anything about the accuracy of Politkovskaya’s writing? Well, (a) he’s a physicist and (b) he writes (unpublished) hardcore eroticism. That just about says it all. In Wally’s World, that makes him a Chechnya scholar, and, in the”mind” of Russophile nutjob like Wally, the word of another Russophile wacko is the equal not just of the BBC but of all the world’s media. Not a word about her many international awards for the quality of her journalism. Not a single one. Not in Pankratov’s “analysis” and not in Wacko Wally’s post. The sum total of Pankratov’s “analysis” is that since the Russian newspaper Izvestia gave a different account than Politkovskaya, the Russian paper must be right and she must be wrong. Never mind that Russian newspaper column inches are for sale and many are slaves of the Kremlin. Never mind that an army of highly respected Western had checked and touted Politkovskaya’s stories (hence her awards). Only propaganda matters to these bloodthirsty crazies. The Neo-Soviet conclusion? Well, the Kremlin was just doing some much needed fact checking when it liquidated her. Pity she had to die, but truth must prevail. Is that totally sick, or what?

Wacko Wally also writes: “The Russian death toll for journalists was certainly troublesome over the past decade, with now 13 journalists murdered since Putin became President of the Russian Federation, two in 2005 and now four murdered in 2006 (thus far). Before Americans become too smug regarding these details, we should remember that despite a supposed “free press” we have our own history of violence against reporters and journalists as well (the Alan Berg murder and Dan Rather assault come to mind in recent years).”

“Troublesome”? Is that the best word for thirteen MURDERS? Well, in the eyes of a Russophile maniac, it’s probably much too strong. Who is Alan Berg? Not a reporter, that’s for sure. He was a talk show host, and there is not one single shred of evidence to indicate that the government was involved in his killing, which is universally acknowledged to be the case with Politkovskaya. Notice that the first thing your standard Russian propaganda always does when a Russian vice is discovered is attack some other country: How does one murder of a talk show host place America in the same company as Russia with thirteen killings of reporters? La Russophobe gave up trying to understand the crazed “minds” of Russophiles long ago (Wacko Wally begins his post by writing: “I apologize for the delay on this topic. Katja and I had a very unexpectedly busy Saturday” — that’s right, he really thinks all kinds of people have been waiting eagerly with bated breath for him to pronounce his wisdom about the killing, and he really thinks they’re interested in the details of his personal life — this is Russophile mania at its most classic).

We owe it to Anna’s memory to root out this kind of outrageous, disgusting propaganda wherever it is to be found. It is “thinking” like this that led to her death in the first place.

Neeka’s Backlog has more on the predictable attacks rolling in from the Russian nationalists who killed Anna and are trying to destroy all hope for Russia’s future. She refers to it quite aptly as “an incredible stench.”

Kiselyov on Politkovskaya

In a Moscow Times column, Evgeny Kiselyov, formerly one of the leading voices on NTV television before it was crushed by the Kremlin, delivers an ode to his colleague Anna Politkovskaya:

Anna Politkovskaya, who was gunned down Saturday outside her home in central Moscow in what appears to have been a contract hit, was not just a famous journalist. She was a symbolic figure, the incarnation of all that makes people both love journalists and hate them.

For me, Politkovskaya’s bravery, single-mindedness and readiness to get the story no matter what the risks involved, put her up there with Veronica Guerin of The Irish Times, who was killed by Dublin drug dealers in 1996 as revenge for her investigative articles.

Many will remember Joel Schumacher’s film about her story, with Guerin played by Cate Blanchett. The film was slammed by many critics for portraying the deceased journalist as highly ambitious and interested only in glory and celebrity. In fact, Guerin was completely different — modest and concerned only with telling her readers the truth. I once met Veronica and can vouch for this personally.

Politkovskaya was from the same mold. If anything, she was even less interested in money. She was more ascetic, more of a human rights activist. She had one main theme: human rights violations in Chechnya. She not only wrote about this, but tried to help people whose rights had been violated, to get them out of torture chambers and back on their feet. This was where the royalties from her articles and books went.

Contrary to the common perception that renowned journalists earn a lot of money, Politkovskaya lived very modestly, like the overwhelming majority of her colleagues. She drove an old beat-up Lada and rented an apartment in an old building.

People like Politkovskaya are crusaders. She was a study in fanaticism and obsession. Sometimes it even seemed as though she was cloaked in an aura of saintliness, like many people who believe they have a mission in life that must be pursued every hour of every day and in every way possible. Politkovskaya believed that fate had given her a mission: to tell people the truth about what was actually going on in Chechnya.

This was why she spent almost every day investigating human rights violations and other crimes committed by federal forces and their Chechen allies during a war that, according to opinion polls, most Russians had not supported for years. It is a war that swept the man who started its latest phase into the Kremlin. President Vladimir Putin regards criticism of the war as a personal affront.

The criticism that Politkovskaya expressed in her articles drove many to distraction, including the authorities in Moscow and their appointees in Chechnya, as well as many ordinary people who did not enjoy hearing unpleasant news. This frustration grew into hatred.

Politkovskaya was a silent rebuke to many of her fellow journalists, who accepted the rules of the game as laid down by the authorities, rules that have cowed journalists into looking for themselves, their careers and peace of mind above all else while subjecting themselves to relentless self-censorship.

Politkovskaya was not an easy person to get along with. It was impossible to convince her not to publish certain information or to get into her good graces by offering her an exclusive.

Those in power, both political and military, tried to avoid her. A colleague of mine once told me how, in the Caucasus, a general known for his fearlessness — someone who had looked death in the face — ran into Politkovskaya on a mountain road, then turned his jeep around and sped off home so that the chance encounter would not turn into an interview.

Politkovskaya was not only a difficult person for those whom she exposed or asked pointed questions, but occasionally for those who agreed with her.

At this point I should make a confession. A few years ago, when I was hosting the political talk show “Glas Naroda,” or “Vox Populi,” on NTV — when the channel was not yet under de facto state control — even when we had already discussed events in and around Chechnya, I still felt uneasy whenever Politkovskaya was in the studio audience.

I knew that if she had the microphone she could tear to pieces any opponent, accusing him or her — without mincing her words — of lying or withholding information. In other words, she could generate an outright scandal. She was extremely temperamental, but she never had a hidden agenda — just the desire to tell the truth.

Politkovskaya long ago disappeared from our television screens. The media, and television in particular, is increasingly becoming a business, and business is often incompatible with critical opinions from journalists who cast doubt on statements made by government officials. This is happening everywhere, but unfortunately, as often happens, it becomes monstrous, grotesque and rampant in Russia. There is less and less space for journalism, particularly of the investigative kind.

Some journalists had apparently started a muttering campaign against Politkovskaya, asking why she kept hammering away about Chechnya and nothing else. Nothing can be done, they said. Everyone is fed up with Chechnya, people don’t want to hear about it and readers are deserting her newspaper. But she stuck to her guns. In the end she paid with her life.
As the boss of a respected Moscow newspaper said cynically, “She kept on asking for it, and she fell.”

Politkovskaya’s murder was clearly ordered and was clearly political. It is unimportant whether she was murdered out of revenge, as a warning to others or to prevent the publication of potentially damaging material. The last option seems least likely, because in recent years numerous journalistic exposes have, alas, come directly from the hands of venal officials and lying politicians.

I feel embarrassed for many of my colleagues. Alexander Mamontov, the editor of Russia’s oldest and still-respected newspaper, Izvestia, which recently has recently taken an increasingly pro-government line, said that Politkovskaya’s professional activities “had not the slightest thing to do with what happened to her.” This was just hours after the murder, when no one knew any details of the crime. I wonder what he knew that enabled him to make such a categorical statement.

Meanwhile, people have been found to say, obligingly, that Politkovskaya’s murder was a provocation by enemies of the regime. But you could just as easily accuse enemies of the opposition and say that they organized this horrible crime in order to point the finger at the regime’s critics.

It is unlikely that the killer and — more importantly –whoever ordered the murder will ever be found, just as the killer of former Channel One boss and television journalist Vladislav Listyev — shot to death in his home in 1995 — has never been found. This is the rule rather than the exception in these cases.

Much will also be said now about how the murder of a journalist should be seen as no less serious a crime than the murder of a politician; that journalism is a public profession and, as such, journalists should be untouchable. I agree completely. But the professional immunity of journalists must be guaranteed before their physical safety.

This immunity does not exist in Russia today, because the state has no respect for journalists’ rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Everything springs from this. And for this, the authorities are definitely to blame.

Konnander on the Kremlin’s Silence

Vilhelm Konnader analyzes the outrageous silence of the Kremlin in the face of the Politkovskaya killing. Click here to read his devastating exposure of the Kremlin’s vile nature.

Konnander on the Kremlin’s Silence

Vilhelm Konnader analyzes the outrageous silence of the Kremlin in the face of the Politkovskaya killing. Click here to read his devastating exposure of the Kremlin’s vile nature.

Konnander on the Kremlin’s Silence

Vilhelm Konnader analyzes the outrageous silence of the Kremlin in the face of the Politkovskaya killing. Click here to read his devastating exposure of the Kremlin’s vile nature.

Konnander on the Kremlin’s Silence

Vilhelm Konnader analyzes the outrageous silence of the Kremlin in the face of the Politkovskaya killing. Click here to read his devastating exposure of the Kremlin’s vile nature.

Konnander on the Kremlin’s Silence

Vilhelm Konnader analyzes the outrageous silence of the Kremlin in the face of the Politkovskaya killing. Click here to read his devastating exposure of the Kremlin’s vile nature.