Daily Archives: July 22, 2007

The Sunday Photos

Taken from the Oborona website, the following images show the groups heroic efforts to erect billboard art to protest against the rise of dictatorship in Russia. There is more true Russian patriotism in the fingernail of any random Oborona member than Dictator Putin has in his whole body.

Translation: The first picture shows a guy named Pupkin (this is the Russian equivalent of “John Doe”) saying: “I’m sick and tired of hearing about that Khodorkovskiy!” — and on the television Khodorkovskiy is shown behind bars. In the second picture, Pupkin is shown on television behind bars, and a menacing looking guy is saying “Enough already about that Pupkin.” (We can’t read what’s written on the guy’s hat, though we suspect that’s probably part of the joke too.)

Needs no translation. Talk about one picture being worth 1,000 words!

Translation: Free Mikhail Trepashkin!

The Sunday Slam, Part I: Nemtsov Speaks

Writing in the Moscow Times, former Nizhny Novgorod mayor and Kremlin insider Boris Nemtsov rips the Kremlin, and the lazy, cowardly people of Russia, several new ones:

It is disgusting to watch the “Vremya” nightly news on Channel One, which reminds me of the broadcasts during the Brezhnev era. It is appalling how all of the famous journalists who disagreed with the Kremlin were fired. It is disgusting that the St. Petersburg clan in the Kremlin controls billions of dollars in wealth. It is offensive that the level of corruption is now twice what it was under Boris Yeltsin, which has earned Russia shamefully low marks in international corruption ratings every year.

It is reprehensible that police beat people with truncheons, not because they are guilty of crimes, but because they have taken to the streets to demand justice. It is offensive that Putin’s portrait hangs in every public office. It is disgusting that the Kremlin spends millions of dollars to bring students to Moscow by bus and train from all corners of Russia to participate in pro-Putin meetings. It is simply nauseating to see how Sergei Ivanov, Putin’s best friend and likely successor, was promoted to first deputy prime minister despite the vile gangsterism that is rampant in the nation’s army barracks; the tragedy of Andrei Sychyov; and the embarrassing failure of the Bulava missile launch. It is offensive that Moscow is swimming in wealth while the rest of Russia lives like a poor colony.

It is offensive that under Putin the state has taken on the role of plunderer and racketeer, with an appetite that grows with each successive conquest. It began with the break-up and expropriation of Yukos, then the questionable purchase of a majority share in the Sakhalin-2 project and now Gazprom’s purchase of the Kovytka gas field in East Siberia. The country’s great size and wealth only means there will be much more for the Kremlin to grab. But the greatest calamity is that nobody is allowed to utter a word in protest regarding all of this. “Keep quiet,” the authorities seem to say, “or things will go worse for you. This is none of your business.”

It is truly disgusting that people’s opinions don’t mean anything. “You are welcome to elect whom you choose,” they tell us, “as long as it is one of the candidates we have put forward.” There used to be 100 million voters. Now there is only one. It is offensive that we have resigned ourselves to accepting as Putin’s successor whomever he happens to slap on the back. According to recent polls, fully 40 percent of Russians are prepared to vote for whomever Putin supports — no questions asked.

It is appalling that, rather than conducting a sensible and balanced foreign policy, the current administration is drawing Russia into an arms race at a time when it is completely unnecessary. It is outrageous that the number of our enemies has increased to include Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and Belarus. It is distressing that cynicism and lying have become an inseparable part of Russian politics and that it doesn’t seem to bother anyone.

Where do we now stand? If we analyze Putin’s presidency, it becomes clear that, year after year, he has taken away the rights of the people. We didn’t have many rights to begin with, but he managed to take away what few we had. But Putin could not have achieved this without firing all the dissenting journalists, instituting censorship of the mass media, annulling the direct popular election of governors, passing repressive electoral laws, eliminating the cumulative pension system and de-privatization, to name only a few.

It would be reasonable to ask if only the authorities are to blame for all this. The answer is no, because it all happened with our approval, outright support, or, at the very least, our tacit complicity. The majority is either tired of thinking, is unable to think, has grown out of practice of thinking, or else simply doesn’t care. And as long as the majority is content with the status quo, the chances are slim that conditions will improve in any way.

Under such circumstances, the political opposition can only represent the interests of the minority. This is the group that “can not live by bread alone.” Restoring the rights lost during Putin’s leadership and returning Russia to the path towards developing a democratic state is a mission that can be accomplished.

The Sunday Slam, Part II: The Wall Street Journal Lays Neo-Soviet Russia Bare

The Wall Street Journal reports (via Other Russia):

In the six or seven years in which they interacted on a regular basis, Vladimir Putin’s police state and journalist Fatima Tlisova had a mostly one-way relationship. Ms. Tlisova’s food was poisoned (causing a nearly fatal case of kidney failure), her ribs were broken by assailants unknown, her teenage son was detained by drunken policemen for the crime of not being an ethnic Russian, and agents of the Federal Security Services (FSB) forced her into a car, took her to a forest outside the city of Nalchik and extinguished cigarettes on every finger of her right hand, “so that you can write better,” as one of her tormentors informed her. Last year, the 41-year-old journalist decided she’d had enough. Along with her colleague Yuri Bagrov, she applied for, and was granted, asylum in the United States.

Ms. Tlisova and Mr. Bagrov are, as the wedding refrain has it, something old, something new: characters from an era that supposedly vanished with the collapse of the Soviet Union 16 years ago. Now that era, or something that looks increasingly like it, seems to be upon us again. What can we do?

The most important task is to get some facts straight. Fact No. 1: The Bush administration is not provoking a new Cold War with Russia.

That it is seems to be the view of Beltway pundits such as Anatol Lieven, whose indignation at alleged U.S. hostility to Russia is inversely correlated with his concerns about mounting Russian hostility to the U.S., its allies and the likes of Ms. Tlisova. In an article in the March issue of the American Conservative, the leftish Mr. Lieven made the case against the administration for its “bitterly anti-Russian statements,” the plan to bring Ukraine into NATO and other supposed encroachments on Russia’s self-declared sphere of influence. In this reading, Mr. Putin’s increasingly strident anti-Western rhetoric is merely a response to a deliberate and needless U.S. policy of provocation.

Yet talk to actual Russians and you’ll find that one of their chief gripes with this administration has been its over-the-top overtures to Mr. Putin: President Bush’s “insight” into the Russian’s soul on their first meeting in 2001; Condoleezza Rice’s reported advice to “forgive Russia” for its anti-American shenanigans in 2003; the administration’s decision to permit Russian membership in the World Trade Organization in 2006; the Lobster Summit earlier this month at the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport (which Mr. Putin graciously followed up by announcing the “suspension” of Russia’s obligations under the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty).

This isn’t a study in appeasement, quite. But it stands in striking contrast to the British government’s decision yesterday to expel four Russian diplomats over Mr. Putin’s refusal to extradite Andrei Lugovoi, the former FSB man suspected of murdering Alexander Litvinenko in London last November with a massive dose of polonium. “The heinous crime of murder does require justice,” British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said yesterday. “This response is proportional and it is clear at whom it is aimed.” Would that Dick Cheney walked that talk.

Now turn to Fact No. 2. Russia is acting with increasingly unrestrained rhetorical, diplomatic, economic and political hostility to whoever stands in the way of Mr. Putin’s ambitions.

The enemies’ list begins with Mr. Putin’s domestic critics and the vocations they represent: imprisoned Yukos CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky; murdered journalist Anna Politkovskaya; harassed opposition leader Garry Kasparov. It continues with foreign companies which have had to forfeit multibillion-dollar investments when Kremlin-favored companies decided they wanted a piece of the action. It goes on to small neighboring democracies such as Estonia, victim of a recent Russian cyberwar when it decided to remove a monument to its Soviet subjugators from downtown Tallinn. It culminates with direct rhetorical assaults on the U.S., as when Mr. Putin suggested in a recent speech that the threat posed by the U.S., “as during the time of the Third Reich,” include “the same claims of exceptionality and diktat in the world.”

None of these Kremlin assaults can seriously be laid at the White House’s feet, unless one believes the lurid anti-Western conspiracy theories spun out by senior Russian officials. And that brings us to Fact No. 3. Russia has become, in the precise sense of the word, a fascist state.

It does not matter here, as the Kremlin’s apologists are so fond of pointing out, that Mr. Putin is wildly popular in Russia: Popularity is what competent despots get when they destroy independent media, stoke nationalistic fervor with military buildups and the cunning exploitation of the Church, and ride a wave of petrodollars to pay off the civil service and balance their budgets. Nor does it matter that Mr. Putin hasn’t re-nationalized the “means of production” outright; corporatism was at the heart of Hitler’s economic policy, too.

What matters, rather, is nicely captured in a remark by Russian foreign ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin regarding Britain’s decision to expel the four diplomats. “I don’t understand the position of the British government,” Mr. Kamynin said. “It is prepared to sacrifice our relations in trade and education for the sake of one man.”

That’s a telling remark, both in its substance and in the apparent insouciance with which it was made: The whole architecture of liberal democracy is designed primarily “for the sake of one man.” Not only does Mr. Kamynin seem unaware of it, he seems to think we are unaware of it. Perhaps the indulgence which the West has extended to Mr. Putin’s regime over the past seven years gives him a reason to think so.

Last night, Ms. Tlisova was in Washington, D.C., to accept an award from the National Press Club on behalf of Anna Politkovskaya. “She knew she was condemned. She knew she would be killed. She just didn’t know when, so she tried to achieve as much as she could in the time she had,” Ms. Tlisova said in her prepared statement. “Maybe Anna Politkovskaya was indeed very damaging to the Russia that President Putin has created. But for us, the people of the Caucasus, she was a symbol of hope and faith in another Russia — a country with a conscience, honor and compassion for all its citizens.”

How do we deal with the old-new Russia? By getting the facts straight. That was Politkovskaya’s calling, as it is Ms. Tlisova’s, as it should be ours.

The Sunday Slam, Part III: More Evidence of the Kremlin’s Lies About its Constitution

La Russophobe has already explained in detail how the Kremlin is lying brazenly about the content of the Russian Constitution, claiming it prevents the extradition of Andrei Lugovoi for trial on charges of murdering dissident Alexander Litvinenko in London. Now lawyer Robert Amsterdam heaps yet more evidence on the pile:

The Former Secretary-General of the Council of Europe writes a letter to the Financial Times arguing that in fact Russia is legally able to extradite Andrei Lugovoi.

Article opens door to extradition of Lugovoi

From Prof Daniel Tarschys

Sir,

The claim that the Russian constitution prevents the extradition of the former Russian agent Andrei Lugovoi is contestable.

It is true that one article in its bill of rights and freedoms contains what seems to be a blanket guarantee against the extradition of Russian citizens, but a subsequent article opens the door for extradition of indicted persons on the basis of federal law or international treaty.

On December 10 1999, the Russian Federation ratified three international treaties on extradition (Council of Europe conventions ETS 024, 086 and 098).

The special reservations and declarations attached to these ratifications do not seem to vindicate the refusal to extradite Mr Lugovoi, but any objections to the UK request should at any rate be based on these texts rather than on the Russian constitution.

Daniel Tarschys,
Professor in Political Science,
University of Stockholm,
Stockholm, Sweden

It’s just amazing that Russia can be so fully neo-Soviet as to think it can get away with telling these ridiculous lies about the Constitution. Even if there was some textual provision which restricted the Kremlin’s action, and there isn’t, it would be child’s play to change that provision if Putin wanted to do it. If he wanted to, he could have the whole Constitution abolished or altered to give him power for life, and it could be done in minutes. The Russian people are just that heedless of freedom and their own future. The Kremlin’s argument about Lugovoi offends the intelligence of every thinking person just as the USSR used to routinely do. If Russia keeps it up, it will meet exactly the same fate.

The Sunday Slam, Part III: More Evidence of the Kremlin’s Lies About its Constitution

La Russophobe has already explained in detail how the Kremlin is lying brazenly about the content of the Russian Constitution, claiming it prevents the extradition of Andrei Lugovoi for trial on charges of murdering dissident Alexander Litvinenko in London. Now lawyer Robert Amsterdam heaps yet more evidence on the pile:

The Former Secretary-General of the Council of Europe writes a letter to the Financial Times arguing that in fact Russia is legally able to extradite Andrei Lugovoi.

Article opens door to extradition of Lugovoi

From Prof Daniel Tarschys

Sir,

The claim that the Russian constitution prevents the extradition of the former Russian agent Andrei Lugovoi is contestable.

It is true that one article in its bill of rights and freedoms contains what seems to be a blanket guarantee against the extradition of Russian citizens, but a subsequent article opens the door for extradition of indicted persons on the basis of federal law or international treaty.

On December 10 1999, the Russian Federation ratified three international treaties on extradition (Council of Europe conventions ETS 024, 086 and 098).

The special reservations and declarations attached to these ratifications do not seem to vindicate the refusal to extradite Mr Lugovoi, but any objections to the UK request should at any rate be based on these texts rather than on the Russian constitution.

Daniel Tarschys,
Professor in Political Science,
University of Stockholm,
Stockholm, Sweden

It’s just amazing that Russia can be so fully neo-Soviet as to think it can get away with telling these ridiculous lies about the Constitution. Even if there was some textual provision which restricted the Kremlin’s action, and there isn’t, it would be child’s play to change that provision if Putin wanted to do it. If he wanted to, he could have the whole Constitution abolished or altered to give him power for life, and it could be done in minutes. The Russian people are just that heedless of freedom and their own future. The Kremlin’s argument about Lugovoi offends the intelligence of every thinking person just as the USSR used to routinely do. If Russia keeps it up, it will meet exactly the same fate.

The Sunday Slam, Part III: More Evidence of the Kremlin’s Lies About its Constitution

La Russophobe has already explained in detail how the Kremlin is lying brazenly about the content of the Russian Constitution, claiming it prevents the extradition of Andrei Lugovoi for trial on charges of murdering dissident Alexander Litvinenko in London. Now lawyer Robert Amsterdam heaps yet more evidence on the pile:

The Former Secretary-General of the Council of Europe writes a letter to the Financial Times arguing that in fact Russia is legally able to extradite Andrei Lugovoi.

Article opens door to extradition of Lugovoi

From Prof Daniel Tarschys

Sir,

The claim that the Russian constitution prevents the extradition of the former Russian agent Andrei Lugovoi is contestable.

It is true that one article in its bill of rights and freedoms contains what seems to be a blanket guarantee against the extradition of Russian citizens, but a subsequent article opens the door for extradition of indicted persons on the basis of federal law or international treaty.

On December 10 1999, the Russian Federation ratified three international treaties on extradition (Council of Europe conventions ETS 024, 086 and 098).

The special reservations and declarations attached to these ratifications do not seem to vindicate the refusal to extradite Mr Lugovoi, but any objections to the UK request should at any rate be based on these texts rather than on the Russian constitution.

Daniel Tarschys,
Professor in Political Science,
University of Stockholm,
Stockholm, Sweden

It’s just amazing that Russia can be so fully neo-Soviet as to think it can get away with telling these ridiculous lies about the Constitution. Even if there was some textual provision which restricted the Kremlin’s action, and there isn’t, it would be child’s play to change that provision if Putin wanted to do it. If he wanted to, he could have the whole Constitution abolished or altered to give him power for life, and it could be done in minutes. The Russian people are just that heedless of freedom and their own future. The Kremlin’s argument about Lugovoi offends the intelligence of every thinking person just as the USSR used to routinely do. If Russia keeps it up, it will meet exactly the same fate.

The Sunday Slam, Part III: More Evidence of the Kremlin’s Lies About its Constitution

La Russophobe has already explained in detail how the Kremlin is lying brazenly about the content of the Russian Constitution, claiming it prevents the extradition of Andrei Lugovoi for trial on charges of murdering dissident Alexander Litvinenko in London. Now lawyer Robert Amsterdam heaps yet more evidence on the pile:

The Former Secretary-General of the Council of Europe writes a letter to the Financial Times arguing that in fact Russia is legally able to extradite Andrei Lugovoi.

Article opens door to extradition of Lugovoi

From Prof Daniel Tarschys

Sir,

The claim that the Russian constitution prevents the extradition of the former Russian agent Andrei Lugovoi is contestable.

It is true that one article in its bill of rights and freedoms contains what seems to be a blanket guarantee against the extradition of Russian citizens, but a subsequent article opens the door for extradition of indicted persons on the basis of federal law or international treaty.

On December 10 1999, the Russian Federation ratified three international treaties on extradition (Council of Europe conventions ETS 024, 086 and 098).

The special reservations and declarations attached to these ratifications do not seem to vindicate the refusal to extradite Mr Lugovoi, but any objections to the UK request should at any rate be based on these texts rather than on the Russian constitution.

Daniel Tarschys,
Professor in Political Science,
University of Stockholm,
Stockholm, Sweden

It’s just amazing that Russia can be so fully neo-Soviet as to think it can get away with telling these ridiculous lies about the Constitution. Even if there was some textual provision which restricted the Kremlin’s action, and there isn’t, it would be child’s play to change that provision if Putin wanted to do it. If he wanted to, he could have the whole Constitution abolished or altered to give him power for life, and it could be done in minutes. The Russian people are just that heedless of freedom and their own future. The Kremlin’s argument about Lugovoi offends the intelligence of every thinking person just as the USSR used to routinely do. If Russia keeps it up, it will meet exactly the same fate.

The Sunday Slam, Part III: More Evidence of the Kremlin’s Lies About its Constitution

La Russophobe has already explained in detail how the Kremlin is lying brazenly about the content of the Russian Constitution, claiming it prevents the extradition of Andrei Lugovoi for trial on charges of murdering dissident Alexander Litvinenko in London. Now lawyer Robert Amsterdam heaps yet more evidence on the pile:

The Former Secretary-General of the Council of Europe writes a letter to the Financial Times arguing that in fact Russia is legally able to extradite Andrei Lugovoi.

Article opens door to extradition of Lugovoi

From Prof Daniel Tarschys

Sir,

The claim that the Russian constitution prevents the extradition of the former Russian agent Andrei Lugovoi is contestable.

It is true that one article in its bill of rights and freedoms contains what seems to be a blanket guarantee against the extradition of Russian citizens, but a subsequent article opens the door for extradition of indicted persons on the basis of federal law or international treaty.

On December 10 1999, the Russian Federation ratified three international treaties on extradition (Council of Europe conventions ETS 024, 086 and 098).

The special reservations and declarations attached to these ratifications do not seem to vindicate the refusal to extradite Mr Lugovoi, but any objections to the UK request should at any rate be based on these texts rather than on the Russian constitution.

Daniel Tarschys,
Professor in Political Science,
University of Stockholm,
Stockholm, Sweden

It’s just amazing that Russia can be so fully neo-Soviet as to think it can get away with telling these ridiculous lies about the Constitution. Even if there was some textual provision which restricted the Kremlin’s action, and there isn’t, it would be child’s play to change that provision if Putin wanted to do it. If he wanted to, he could have the whole Constitution abolished or altered to give him power for life, and it could be done in minutes. The Russian people are just that heedless of freedom and their own future. The Kremlin’s argument about Lugovoi offends the intelligence of every thinking person just as the USSR used to routinely do. If Russia keeps it up, it will meet exactly the same fate.

The Sunday Sports: Shamapova Gets the Boot from Russia

Sportingo reports that Russia has finally figured out what La Russophobe has been saying all along: Maria Sharapova sucks. Looks like some people owe LR a mighty big apology. We dare to wonder how long it will take Russians to realize we are right on Putin, too.

Maria Sharapova has been dropped from the Russian Fed Cup team after yet another last-minute withdrawal at last week’s Fed Cup semi-finals against the US. The decision to leave out the tall, blonde beauty was confirmed by Fed Cup captain Shamil Tarpishchev, who stated that he didn’t think it appropriate to invite Sharapova to the Fed Cup final. The decision to leave out the world No. 2 from the Russian team was arguably made through frustration, after repeated withdrawals due to ‘mystery injuries’. Tarpischev was clearly angered and stated that Sharapova should forget the promises she made to play Fed Cup. He went on to say that it would be inappropriate to allow her to play in the Fed Cup when the team managed to reach the final without her.

Tarpischev’s suspicions about Sharapova’s withdrawals also had political undertones as he claimed that her decision to pull-out from the team yet again was fuelled by pressure from her advisers, who are American. He went on to say that the American advisers would never allow her to play for Russia. Regardless of the validity of such accusations, the decision to drop Sharapova will probably not have a detrimental impact on the team, which is why Tarpishchev was so outspoken about this decision. Russia have many capable players, and showed this by defeating the U.S. 3-2 last week.

Although Svetlana Kuznetsova also pulled out with injury, Tarpishchev is still keen on inviting her to play for Russia in the finals. This is probably due to her loyalty to the Russian team, playing several ties in the past, including the first round in May, when Russia whitewashed Spain 5-0. Nadia Petrova, Anna Chakvetadze and Elena Vesnina are likely to complete the Russian lineup and even without Sharapova, the Russian team appear strong enough to defeat the Italians in the final. Russia also have home advantage, as the final will be played at Moscow’s Luzhniki Arena, an indoor stadium which can hold 10,000 spectators.

Sharapova’s decision to pull out ahead of the clash with the U.S. represents her ongoing lack of commitment to play for her country and it will almost certainly harm her chances of playing in the Beijing Olympics next year as eligibility requires a commitment to compete in the Fed Cup.

July 21, 2007 — Contents

SATURDAY JULY 21 CONTENTS


(1) How Putin Beats his Rivals . . . and we do Mean Beats

(2) The Horror of Nashi Unbound

(3) Lucas on Berezovsky

(4) This is Putinism

(5) The Mailbag: A Russia Blog Rat Speaks his “Mind”