Daily Archives: August 27, 2007

August 27, 2007 — Contents

MONDAY AUGUST 27 CONTENTS


(1) Another Original LR Translation: The Oborona Files

(2) Annals of “Pacified” Chechnya

(3) Annals of the Neo-Soviet Crackdown on Journalism

(4) Putin’s Posturing Can’t Hide his Fundamental Weakness

(5) Annals of Russian Tennis

(6) The Economist on the KGB-ificiation of Russia

NOTE: We take this opportunity to again remind readers that this coming October 7th is the one-year anniversary of the political murder of Russian hero journalist Anna Politikovskaya. On that date we will devote our virtual pages exclusively to posts in her memory and we welcome submissions of material from readers in the form of overlooked material that has already been published, photographs and artwork, and especially personal observations from those who admired her. These should be forwarded to us by email at our address shown in the sidebar.

This coming Thursday, October 30th, would have been Anna’s 39th birthday. You can’t read our story today about the KGB-ification of Russia without realizing how essential Anna’s reporting was or how breathakingly brave she was to write it.

Another Original LR Translation: The Oborona Files

La Russophobe‘s translator offers yet another invaluable glimpse into the Russian blogosphere, this time from the Oborona website (for those who can read Russian, the Oborona post contains two links and a large number of comments you may wish to peruse).

The Court of Dyatlov vs. Charles Darwin

Oborona

On August 14 in the 370th precinct of the Tverskiy Region in Moscow, a trial will be held to consider the case of Vladimir Akimenkov, an activist in the groups Oborona and OGF. The court will convene at 10:00 at Bolshoi Cherkasskiy Lane, bldg 7/8, room 1B. Akimenkov is accused of insubordination to police who were dispersing a protest sanctioned by the authorities on June 22.

The June 22 picket near the Presidential Administration was, as noted, sanctioned by the authorities, though this did not prevent the militia from dispersing it and detaining several participants. Among those detained was one member of Oborona, Vladimir Akimenkov, who had to spend 17 hours at the police station.

In July the activist was fined by a judge in the Dyatlov regional court for “disturbing the peace by participating in a public demonstration”, inasmuch as the sign Akimenkov was holding, in the opinion of the court, “did not correspond to the purpose of the picket, was aimed at undermining the authority of the Head of State, and was anti-government in its character.” On the sign was written the words, “Time for the Dinosaurs to go Extinct”. This is the first decision by a Russian court that not only officially acknowledges the President of Russia is a prehistoric fossil, but also calls Darwin’s theory of evolution “anti-government”.

This turned out not to be enough for the court, however, and a month later the Dyatlov court decided to punish once again this defender of Darwinism – this time for “disobeying the police” during the dispersal of the same picket. According to article 19.3 of the criminal code, Vladimir Akimenkov could face 15 days imprisonment.

8/13/2007

[TN: The animated double-picture that accompanies this article (shown above) has Gandhi saying, “Putin, are you a dinosaur?” And Putin answering, “No, Ia Krevedko!” (Йа Креведко) – which I think means essentially, “No, I’m a monster.” Doing some quick online research, I gathered that Krevedko is the name of a “Ktulkhu” (Ктулху) – type monster, which is a person with a squid-type mouth… But I could be wrong. Reader comments are most welcome on this issue. A second post updated the above, it is translated below).

The Court is Frightened by Oborona Activists

Oborona

At approximately 9:00 a.m., about one hour before the court convened in the case of Oborona activist Vladimir Akimenkov, activists from Oborona and other organizations began to gather around the court, along with some journalists. All approaches to the court were blocked by police cordons, and as the number of those gathering grew so did the number of police. The Oborona activists had planned simply to attend the trial and watch the somewhat remarkable spectacle of the Dyatlov court, which had declared war on the theory of evolution. They did not plan to raid the court, of course, nor do anything else untoward.

But the Dyatlov court lost its nerve, and at 9:40 a.m. announced that the trial had been canceled. The reason given was the non-appearance of one of the police officer witnesses against the accused. Having allowed into the building only Akimenkov himself and one of the journalists, the court announced that the case would be heard on 22 August, again at 10:00 a.m. The court also noted that photography would not be permitted in the court and only five people would be allowed inside.

On 22 August the statue of limitations will expire in the case of Akimenkov.

Annals of "Pacified Chechnya: Gunplay in Grozny

The New York Times reports:

Two police officers were killed today in the Chechen capital of Grozny as they pursued a rebel, who was also killed, the Chechen Interior Ministry said. The authorities identified the rebel as an associate of Doku Umarov, the movement’s president and military leader.

The shootout followed an outbreak of violence on Thursday in the mountains of Dagestan, which lies east of Chechnya. Two officers were killed in an ambush, and two other attacks west of Chechnya, in Ingushetia, left a Russian soldier dead. A total of at least 16 police officers and soldiers were wounded, the authorities said. The attacks in Dagestan were the latest in a series this summer in Chechnya and its neighboring republics. They underscored the degree to which the insurgency there, weakened since 2004, has managed to survive and conduct operations against Russia’s numerically superior police and military forces.

They also raise questions about Russia’s official assertions that region, a few hundred miles east of Sochi, where Russia is to stage the Winter Olympics in 2014, is secure and under control.

Ingushetia has continued to suffer almost daily ambushes and small bombings, even though Russia sent about 2,500 reinforcements there late last month. Some attacks have been tactically unimpressive, including drive-by shootings at checkpoints and bunkers. Others have involved coordinated ambushes and even a rocket-propelled grenade directed at the home of Ingushetia’s president, Murat M. Zyazikov, a former K.G.B. officer and an ally of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. Chechen separatists have also claimed that a sniper has begun to terrorize the police in Grozny, the Chechen capital, firing on officers in the city’s center and eluding capture.

In a sign of the degree to which Islamic-influenced insurgencies borrow from one another, a separatist Web site said the Chechen sniper had taken the name Chuba, a derivative of Juba, the name used in insurgent videos in Iraq for a sniper guerrilla credited with shooting American troops. American military and intelligence officers have questioned whether Juba actually exists, or is a composite character invented for propaganda purposes and used with graphic images of shootings to sow fear. Similarly, some of the separatist claims in the Caucasus appear to be exaggerated, as they have been for years, including a claim on a separatist Web site that as many as 2,000 new volunteers had taken up arms. Russian officials say the entire insurgency is a fraction of that size.

Whatever the actual number, the latest attacks suggest that the guerrillas, though scattered, remain capable of disruptive actions.

The Guardian reports:

A shootout in Chechnya’s capital left two policemen and a rebel dead, the Chechen Interior Ministry said Friday. Word of the shooting came a day after authorities said ambushes of Russian forces in two provinces neighboring Chechnya had left three troops dead. The Chechen Interior Ministry said officers stopped a suspicious man on a street in Grozny on Thursday night to check his documents and that the man opened fire with a pistol and then fled to a nearby apartment. Police surrounded the apartment building and in the subsequent shooting, two officers and the suspect were killed, the ministry said. It later identified the man as a high-placed comrade of Doku Umarov, the leader of Chechnya’s separatist rebels.

The shooting came on the same day gunmen ambushed security forces in Russia’s volatile North Caucasus region, killing three people and wounding 17, officials said Thursday. A convoy of elite police forces came under fire near the entrance to a highway tunnel in Dagestan on Thursday, leaving two dead, said Mark Tolchinsky, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry in the province east of war-scarred Chechnya. Twelve people were hospitalized with injuries, but five were released later Thursday, said Kazanfar Kurbanov, chief doctor at a local hospital.

In Ingushetia, west of Chechnya, one serviceman was killed and five were wounded late Wednesday when gunmen attacked their armored personnel carrier with grenades and automatic weapons fire, the regional Interior Ministry said.

Annals of the Neo-Soviet Crackdown on Journalism

Just as we predicted it would, Russia is using its new so-called “law against extremism” to crack down not on racist hatred but on those who dare to challenge the Kremlin, most recently focusing its neo-Soviet ire on Vedomosti correspondent Valery Panyushkin. Robert Amsterdam warns:

The harassment of Panyushkin comes with suspicious timing, on the exact same day that we on the Mikhail Khodorkovsky defense team won a major landmark decision from the Swiss prosecutor which underscores the political nature of his persecution, and the illegitimacy of the Russian procuracy. Panyushkin, in addition to being a consummate professional journalist, covering not only democracy movements in Russia but also Belarus and the Ukraine, is also the author of the bestselling book about Mikhail Khodorkovsky entitled “Khodorkovsky: the Prisoner of Silence.” It is furthermore tragically ironic that back in April, while reporting on the March of the Discontented, Panyushkin speculated that “most of the people who feel disgusted about the lies of Putin’s regime do not take to the streets, because they are afraid to be seen in the company of “extremists,” but this fear evaporates as the lack of freedom becomes suffocating.” We can only hope that people like Panyushkin only feel more emboldened and inspired by these outrageous repressive acts.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

A prominent newspaper columnist said Russian police briefly detained him for questioning about suspected extremist activity, as critics charge a newly toughened law against extremism is being used to intimidate Kremlin critics. Valery Panyushkin, special correspondent at Vedomosti, a leading Russian business newspaper that is part-owned by Dow Jones & Co., the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, was the latest of several well-known commentators and activists who have been targeted under the law.

In what officials said was an effort to quash terrorism, amendments passed last year broadened the definition of extremism to include some forms of criticism of government officials. Penalties include prison terms, and the law allows courts to ban organizations and parties deemed extremist. Kremlin critics say the law is being used to muzzle or cripple opponents ahead of parliamentary elections in December and a presidential poll in March. Officials have denied that.

Mr. Panyushkin said an officer stopped him for questioning late Thursday as he prepared to board a train for a business trip to a city in southern Russia. Mr. Panyushkin said the officer didn’t specify the grounds for suspecting him of violating the law against extremism and let him board the train once he had signed a statement that he wasn’t a member of any extremist organization. A police spokesman said he couldn’t immediately comment on the incident.

“It’s incomprehensible to me on what grounds and by whom Valery could be suspected of violating that law,” said Tatyana Lysova, editorial director at Vedomosti. “He’s just a journalist.”

Mr. Panyushkin, 38 years old, writes about business and politics, and his columns have frequently attacked the Kremlin’s crackdown on dissent and political opposition. He was among a number of journalists arrested in Moscow this spring while attempting to cover an opposition march led by former chess champion Garry Kasparov that was violently subdued by riot police.

On Friday, a Moscow court put off a hearing for a month in another case involving the extremism law. Moscow prosecutors have asked the court to declare extremist a book by Andrei Piontkovsky, a political analyst and member of the Yabloko liberal opposition party. The book, “Unloved Country,” is a collection of Mr. Piontkovsky’s columns, many of them critical of President Vladimir Putin. Mr. Piontkovsky had asked for the delay so he would be able to return from the U.S., where he is a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute, a Washington think tank.

In a related case, a court in the southern city of Krasnodar upheld an official warning from prosecutors to the local branch of the Yabloko party for distributing extremist literature that cited two of Mr. Piontkovsky’s books. Yabloko is appealing that ruling. If prosecutors prevail, the local branch of Yabloko could be shut down.

Putin’s Posturing Can’t Hide Russia’s Fundamental Weakness

The Telegraph reports:

Russia’s nuclear bombers are permanently airborne once again and President Vladimir Putin loses no opportunity to strut the world stage and flex his country’s muscles. Yet all the sound and fury disguises one essential fact: far from being a rising power like China or India, Russia is locked in long-term decline. At present, high oil prices give Russia’s economy a temporary lift – and afford Mr Putin the cash to display his military prowess.

But demographics underlie every dimension of national power. Mr Putin cannot avoid the fact that Russia’s population falls by about 800,000 people every year. Instead of the present level of 142 million, Russia will probably have fewer than 100 million people by 2050 and vast swathes of the country will be depopulated. Nations with a real chance of shaping events in the late 21st century do not have falling populations. National decline is virtually guaranteed by low life expectancy, alcohol abuse and the remarkable fact that Russian women experience more abortions than live births.

Power in the 21st century will divide between America’s 300 million people, the European Union’s 460 million and China and India with more than a billion each. Against this background, Russia looks insignificant.

Mr Putin’s second Achilles Heel is the Russian economy. Its dependence on oil and natural gas is a blessing when, as now, prices are high. If prices fall or a long period of volatility begins, Mr Putin will quickly feel the pinch. The uncomfortable fact is that Russia is not a centre of innovation. There are no world class Russian manufacturing companies, no universities churning out new inventions. Instead, the economy is largely resource-dependent and rises or falls with global energy prices. In other words, Mr Putin has virtually no control over Russia’s economic destiny. The vagaries of the world energy market will decide how belligerent he can afford to be.

Hence Russia’s gross national product is only about £800 billion. Britain, with less than half its population, has one worth £1.3 trillion.

While every rattle of Mr Putin’s sabre raises new memories of the Cold War, today’s military situation does not compare with the era of the Iron Curtain. In those days, Central Europe was a Russian fiefdom and the Kremlin deployed 18 armoured divisions in the old East Germany, projecting its military power to the geographical centre of Europe. Today, by contrast, the satellite states are independent. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, once republics of the Soviet Union, are members of both the EU and Nato. Nato’s eastern border is now a short drive from St Petersburg. These fundamental realities betray Russia’s essential weakness – which Mr Putin is doing his utmost to mask.

Putin’s Posturing Can’t Hide Russia’s Fundamental Weakness

The Telegraph reports:

Russia’s nuclear bombers are permanently airborne once again and President Vladimir Putin loses no opportunity to strut the world stage and flex his country’s muscles. Yet all the sound and fury disguises one essential fact: far from being a rising power like China or India, Russia is locked in long-term decline. At present, high oil prices give Russia’s economy a temporary lift – and afford Mr Putin the cash to display his military prowess.

But demographics underlie every dimension of national power. Mr Putin cannot avoid the fact that Russia’s population falls by about 800,000 people every year. Instead of the present level of 142 million, Russia will probably have fewer than 100 million people by 2050 and vast swathes of the country will be depopulated. Nations with a real chance of shaping events in the late 21st century do not have falling populations. National decline is virtually guaranteed by low life expectancy, alcohol abuse and the remarkable fact that Russian women experience more abortions than live births.

Power in the 21st century will divide between America’s 300 million people, the European Union’s 460 million and China and India with more than a billion each. Against this background, Russia looks insignificant.

Mr Putin’s second Achilles Heel is the Russian economy. Its dependence on oil and natural gas is a blessing when, as now, prices are high. If prices fall or a long period of volatility begins, Mr Putin will quickly feel the pinch. The uncomfortable fact is that Russia is not a centre of innovation. There are no world class Russian manufacturing companies, no universities churning out new inventions. Instead, the economy is largely resource-dependent and rises or falls with global energy prices. In other words, Mr Putin has virtually no control over Russia’s economic destiny. The vagaries of the world energy market will decide how belligerent he can afford to be.

Hence Russia’s gross national product is only about £800 billion. Britain, with less than half its population, has one worth £1.3 trillion.

While every rattle of Mr Putin’s sabre raises new memories of the Cold War, today’s military situation does not compare with the era of the Iron Curtain. In those days, Central Europe was a Russian fiefdom and the Kremlin deployed 18 armoured divisions in the old East Germany, projecting its military power to the geographical centre of Europe. Today, by contrast, the satellite states are independent. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, once republics of the Soviet Union, are members of both the EU and Nato. Nato’s eastern border is now a short drive from St Petersburg. These fundamental realities betray Russia’s essential weakness – which Mr Putin is doing his utmost to mask.

Putin’s Posturing Can’t Hide Russia’s Fundamental Weakness

The Telegraph reports:

Russia’s nuclear bombers are permanently airborne once again and President Vladimir Putin loses no opportunity to strut the world stage and flex his country’s muscles. Yet all the sound and fury disguises one essential fact: far from being a rising power like China or India, Russia is locked in long-term decline. At present, high oil prices give Russia’s economy a temporary lift – and afford Mr Putin the cash to display his military prowess.

But demographics underlie every dimension of national power. Mr Putin cannot avoid the fact that Russia’s population falls by about 800,000 people every year. Instead of the present level of 142 million, Russia will probably have fewer than 100 million people by 2050 and vast swathes of the country will be depopulated. Nations with a real chance of shaping events in the late 21st century do not have falling populations. National decline is virtually guaranteed by low life expectancy, alcohol abuse and the remarkable fact that Russian women experience more abortions than live births.

Power in the 21st century will divide between America’s 300 million people, the European Union’s 460 million and China and India with more than a billion each. Against this background, Russia looks insignificant.

Mr Putin’s second Achilles Heel is the Russian economy. Its dependence on oil and natural gas is a blessing when, as now, prices are high. If prices fall or a long period of volatility begins, Mr Putin will quickly feel the pinch. The uncomfortable fact is that Russia is not a centre of innovation. There are no world class Russian manufacturing companies, no universities churning out new inventions. Instead, the economy is largely resource-dependent and rises or falls with global energy prices. In other words, Mr Putin has virtually no control over Russia’s economic destiny. The vagaries of the world energy market will decide how belligerent he can afford to be.

Hence Russia’s gross national product is only about £800 billion. Britain, with less than half its population, has one worth £1.3 trillion.

While every rattle of Mr Putin’s sabre raises new memories of the Cold War, today’s military situation does not compare with the era of the Iron Curtain. In those days, Central Europe was a Russian fiefdom and the Kremlin deployed 18 armoured divisions in the old East Germany, projecting its military power to the geographical centre of Europe. Today, by contrast, the satellite states are independent. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, once republics of the Soviet Union, are members of both the EU and Nato. Nato’s eastern border is now a short drive from St Petersburg. These fundamental realities betray Russia’s essential weakness – which Mr Putin is doing his utmost to mask.

Putin’s Posturing Can’t Hide Russia’s Fundamental Weakness

The Telegraph reports:

Russia’s nuclear bombers are permanently airborne once again and President Vladimir Putin loses no opportunity to strut the world stage and flex his country’s muscles. Yet all the sound and fury disguises one essential fact: far from being a rising power like China or India, Russia is locked in long-term decline. At present, high oil prices give Russia’s economy a temporary lift – and afford Mr Putin the cash to display his military prowess.

But demographics underlie every dimension of national power. Mr Putin cannot avoid the fact that Russia’s population falls by about 800,000 people every year. Instead of the present level of 142 million, Russia will probably have fewer than 100 million people by 2050 and vast swathes of the country will be depopulated. Nations with a real chance of shaping events in the late 21st century do not have falling populations. National decline is virtually guaranteed by low life expectancy, alcohol abuse and the remarkable fact that Russian women experience more abortions than live births.

Power in the 21st century will divide between America’s 300 million people, the European Union’s 460 million and China and India with more than a billion each. Against this background, Russia looks insignificant.

Mr Putin’s second Achilles Heel is the Russian economy. Its dependence on oil and natural gas is a blessing when, as now, prices are high. If prices fall or a long period of volatility begins, Mr Putin will quickly feel the pinch. The uncomfortable fact is that Russia is not a centre of innovation. There are no world class Russian manufacturing companies, no universities churning out new inventions. Instead, the economy is largely resource-dependent and rises or falls with global energy prices. In other words, Mr Putin has virtually no control over Russia’s economic destiny. The vagaries of the world energy market will decide how belligerent he can afford to be.

Hence Russia’s gross national product is only about £800 billion. Britain, with less than half its population, has one worth £1.3 trillion.

While every rattle of Mr Putin’s sabre raises new memories of the Cold War, today’s military situation does not compare with the era of the Iron Curtain. In those days, Central Europe was a Russian fiefdom and the Kremlin deployed 18 armoured divisions in the old East Germany, projecting its military power to the geographical centre of Europe. Today, by contrast, the satellite states are independent. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, once republics of the Soviet Union, are members of both the EU and Nato. Nato’s eastern border is now a short drive from St Petersburg. These fundamental realities betray Russia’s essential weakness – which Mr Putin is doing his utmost to mask.

Putin’s Posturing Can’t Hide Russia’s Fundamental Weakness

The Telegraph reports:

Russia’s nuclear bombers are permanently airborne once again and President Vladimir Putin loses no opportunity to strut the world stage and flex his country’s muscles. Yet all the sound and fury disguises one essential fact: far from being a rising power like China or India, Russia is locked in long-term decline. At present, high oil prices give Russia’s economy a temporary lift – and afford Mr Putin the cash to display his military prowess.

But demographics underlie every dimension of national power. Mr Putin cannot avoid the fact that Russia’s population falls by about 800,000 people every year. Instead of the present level of 142 million, Russia will probably have fewer than 100 million people by 2050 and vast swathes of the country will be depopulated. Nations with a real chance of shaping events in the late 21st century do not have falling populations. National decline is virtually guaranteed by low life expectancy, alcohol abuse and the remarkable fact that Russian women experience more abortions than live births.

Power in the 21st century will divide between America’s 300 million people, the European Union’s 460 million and China and India with more than a billion each. Against this background, Russia looks insignificant.

Mr Putin’s second Achilles Heel is the Russian economy. Its dependence on oil and natural gas is a blessing when, as now, prices are high. If prices fall or a long period of volatility begins, Mr Putin will quickly feel the pinch. The uncomfortable fact is that Russia is not a centre of innovation. There are no world class Russian manufacturing companies, no universities churning out new inventions. Instead, the economy is largely resource-dependent and rises or falls with global energy prices. In other words, Mr Putin has virtually no control over Russia’s economic destiny. The vagaries of the world energy market will decide how belligerent he can afford to be.

Hence Russia’s gross national product is only about £800 billion. Britain, with less than half its population, has one worth £1.3 trillion.

While every rattle of Mr Putin’s sabre raises new memories of the Cold War, today’s military situation does not compare with the era of the Iron Curtain. In those days, Central Europe was a Russian fiefdom and the Kremlin deployed 18 armoured divisions in the old East Germany, projecting its military power to the geographical centre of Europe. Today, by contrast, the satellite states are independent. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, once republics of the Soviet Union, are members of both the EU and Nato. Nato’s eastern border is now a short drive from St Petersburg. These fundamental realities betray Russia’s essential weakness – which Mr Putin is doing his utmost to mask.

Annals of Russian Tennis

Well, Russia’s second-best player, world #5 Svetlana Kuznetsova, won her very first tournament of 2007 over the weekend, the Tier II Pilot Pen event in New Haven Connecticut. She’d reached the finals four other times this year — and lost every single one of them, three times in straight sets, twice to lower-ranked players. It took her nearly three-quarters of the year to get her big “win.”

Guess how she managed it?

She only needed to play four matches to win the tiny title, having been seeded #1 and being given a bye in the first of its five rounds. All the players ranked above her skipped the tournament, and only one other top-ten player entered the draw, and she got eliminated in her first match.

In Kuznetsova’s first match, she barely beat an unseeded Polish player not ranked in the world’s top 30, needing three tough sets to get by her.

In her second match, the quarter finals, her opponent defaulted.

In her third match, the semi-finals, her opponent also defaulted.

And in her fourth match, the finals, she faced an unseeded qualifier named Agnes Szavay from Hungary, not ranked in the world’s top 40 players. The player she met in the finals was ranked lower than the player she met in her opening match. A qualifier, Szavay was playing her eighth match in nine days when she met Kuznetsova on Saturday. She had to play one more match than Kuznetsova within the tournament itself, and she had to win three just to get the right to start the tournament in the first place. Kuznetsova, on the other hand, because of the two defaults, had only been forced to play one complete match before the finals. Yet, the Hungarian soundly whipped the Russian 6-4 in the first set. Dare to imagine what would have happened to Kuznetsova if she’d actually had to face, say, as much as a top-20 opponent in the finals?

And then fate smiled on Kuznetsova yet again. Szavay, exhausted by her tortuous legacy, fell apart physically midway through the second set and she too defaulted.

So that’s what it took to get Russia’s second best player her first tournament win of the year. Not one, not two, but three separate defaults in four matches — including quarters, semis and finals.

Russians are very hard to beat . . . unless of course their opponent actually plays a whole match. Then they’re rather dicey.


Thus, Kuznetsova’s prospects for the future are not necessarily so bright. Thankfully, at least she (pictured above) always has her breathtaking Russian-feminine beauty to fall back on in case tennis doesn’t work out.

* * *

In a related development, Russia also had the #1 seed in the men’s draw at this tournament, filled by world #5 Nikolai Davydenko (currently embroiled in a massive scandal for rigging matches). Not blessed with three consecutive defaults and actually forced to play matches, Davydenko was eliminated in the second round by a Frenchman not ranked in the world’s top 35 — going down in straight sets. No Russian man got as far as the semi-finals and there was an all-American final.

* * *

In still more related news, the ridiculous good luck of Maria Shamapova continues apace. The draw at the U.S. Open, final major of 2007, has been announced, and we’re “shocked, shocked” to learn that world number one Justine Henin, former champions Serena and Venus Williams and dangerous Serb youngsters Ana Ivanovic and Jelena Jankovic have all been placed in the opposite half of the draw from Maria. At most, she’ll have to play just one of them, and only in the finals, whilst they will have to fight it out among themselves, exhausting each other in the process.

That’s why we call her Shamapova. All illusion, no substance whatsoever.

* * *

Speaking of Davydenko and the U.S. Open, the tournament has been forced to hire a special task force to monitor for cheating in the wake of the Davydenko sports betting scandal. Russians bring so much to the table! Thank heavens they’ve finally arrived to play a bold new role in tennis!

The Economist on the KGB-ificiation of Russia

The Economist offers a brilliant two part review of how the KGB has taken Russia over even more pervasively than under communism:

Part I: The Fall and Rise of the KGB

ON THE evening of August 22nd 1991—16 years ago this week—Alexei Kondaurov, a KGB general, stood by the darkened window of his Moscow office and watched a jubilant crowd moving towards the KGB headquarters in Lubyanka Square. A coup against Mikhail Gorbachev had just been defeated. The head of the KGB who had helped to orchestrate it had been arrested, and Mr Kondaurov was now one of the most senior officers left in the fast-emptying building. For a moment the thronged masses seemed to be heading straight towards him.

Then their anger was diverted to the statue of Felix Dzerzhinsky, the KGB‘s founding father. A couple of men climbed up and slipped a rope round his neck. Then he was yanked up by a crane. Watching “Iron Felix” sway in mid-air, Mr Kondaurov, who had served in the KGB since 1972, felt betrayed “by Gorbachev, by Yeltsin, by the impotent coup leaders”. He remembers thinking, “I will prove to you that your victory will be short-lived.”

Those feelings of betrayal and humiliation were shared by 500,000 KGB operatives across Russia and beyond, including Vladimir Putin, whose resignation as a lieutenant-colonel in the service had been accepted only the day before. Eight years later, though, the KGB men seemed poised for revenge. Just before he became president, Mr Putin told his ex-colleagues at the Federal Security Service (FSB), the KGB‘s successor, “A group of FSB operatives, dispatched under cover to work in the government of the Russian federation, is successfully fulfilling its task.” He was only half joking.

Over the two terms of Mr Putin’s presidency, that “group of FSB operatives” has consolidated its political power and built a new sort of corporate state in the process. Men from the FSB and its sister organisations control the Kremlin, the government, the media and large parts of the economy—as well as the military and security forces. According to research by Olga Kryshtanovskaya, a sociologist at the Russian Academy of Sciences, a quarter of the country’s senior bureaucrats are siloviki—a Russian word meaning, roughly, “power guys”, which includes members of the armed forces and other security services, not just the FSB. The proportion rises to three-quarters if people simply affiliated to the security services are included. These people represent a psychologically homogeneous group, loyal to roots that go back to the Bolsheviks’ first political police, the Cheka. As Mr Putin says repeatedly, “There is no such thing as a former Chekist.”

By many indicators, today’s security bosses enjoy a combination of power and money without precedent in Russia’s history. The Soviet KGB and its pre-revolutionary ancestors did not care much about money; power was what mattered. Influential though it was, the KGB was a “combat division” of the Communist Party, and subordinate to it. As an outfit that was part intelligence organisation, part security agency and part secret political police, it was often better informed, but it could not act on its own authority; it could only make “recommendations”. In the 1970s and 1980s it was not even allowed to spy on the party bosses and had to act within Soviet laws, however inhuman.

The KGB provided a crucial service of surveillance and suppression; it was a state within a state. Now, however, it has become the state itself. Apart from Mr Putin, “There is nobody today who can say no to the FSB,” says Mr Kondaurov.

All important decisions in Russia, says Ms Kryshtanovskaya, are now taken by a tiny group of men who served alongside Mr Putin in the KGB and who come from his home town of St Petersburg. In the next few months this coterie may well decide the outcome of next year’s presidential election. But whoever succeeds Mr Putin, real power is likely to remain in the organisation. Of all the Soviet institutions, the KGB withstood Russia’s transformation to capitalism best and emerged strongest. “Communist ideology has gone, but the methods and psychology of its secret police have remained,” says Mr Kondaurov, who is now a member of parliament.

Scotched, not killed

Mr Putin’s ascent to the presidency of Russia was the result of a chain of events that started at least a quarter of a century earlier, when Yuri Andropov, a former head of the KGB, succeeded Leonid Brezhnev as general secretary of the Communist Party. Andropov’s attempts to reform the stagnating Soviet economy in order to preserve the Soviet Union and its political system have served as a model for Mr Putin. Early in his presidency Mr Putin unveiled a plaque at the Lubyanka headquarters that paid tribute to Andropov as an “outstanding political figure”.

Staffed by highly educated, pragmatic men recruited in the 1960s and 1970s, the KGB was well aware of the dire state of the Soviet economy and the antique state of the party bosses. It was therefore one of the main forces behind perestroika, the loose policy of restructuring started by Mr Gorbachev in the 1980s. Perestroika‘s reforms were meant to give the Soviet Union a new lease of life. When they threatened its existence, the KGB mounted a coup against Mr Gorbachev. Ironically, this precipitated the Soviet collapse.

The defeat of the coup gave Russia an historic chance to liquidate the organisation. “If either Gorbachev or Yeltsin had been bold enough to dismantle the KGB during the autumn of 1991, he would have met little resistance,” wrote Yevgenia Albats, a journalist who has courageously covered the grimmest chapters in the KGB‘s history. Instead, both Mr Gorbachev and Yeltsin tried to reform it.

The “blue blood” of the KGB—the First Chief Directorate, in charge of espionage—was spun off into a separate intelligence service. The rest of the agency was broken into several parts. Then, after a few short months of talk about openness, the doors of the agency slammed shut again and the man charged with trying to reform it, Vadim Bakatin, was ejected. His glum conclusion, delivered at a conference in 1993, was that although the myth about the KGB‘s invincibility had collapsed, the agency itself was very much alive.

Indeed it was. The newly named Ministry of Security continued to “delegate” the officers of the “active reserve” into state institutions and commercial firms. Soon KGB officers were staffing the tax police and customs services. As Boris Yeltsin himself admitted by the end of 1993, all attempts to reorganise the KGB were “superficial and cosmetic”; in fact, it could not be reformed. “The system of political police has been preserved,” he said, “and could be resurrected.”

Yet Mr Yeltsin, though he let the agency survive, did not use it as his power base. In fact, the KGB was cut off from the post-Soviet redistribution of assets. Worse still, it was upstaged and outwitted by a tiny group of opportunists, many of them Jews (not a people beloved by the KGB), who became known as the oligarchs. Between them, they grabbed most of the country’s natural resources and other privatised assets. KGB officers watched the oligarchs get super-rich while they stayed cash-strapped and sometimes even unpaid.

Some officers did well enough, but only by offering their services to the oligarchs. To protect themselves from rampant crime and racketeering, the oligarchs tried to privatise parts of the KGB. Their large and costly security departments were staffed and run by ex-KGB officers. They also hired senior agency men as “consultants”. Fillip Bobkov, the head of the Fifth Directorate (which dealt with dissidents), worked for a media magnate, Vladimir Gusinsky. Mr Kondaurov, a former spokesman for the KGB, worked for Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who ran and largely owned Yukos. “People who stayed in the FSB were B-list,” says Mark Galeotti, a British analyst of the Russian special services.

Lower-ranking staff worked as bodyguards to Russia’s rich. (Andrei Lugovoi, the chief suspect in the murder in London last year of Alexander Litvinenko, once guarded Boris Berezovsky, an oligarch who, facing arrest in Russia, now lives in Britain.) Hundreds of private security firms staffed by KGB veterans sprang up around the country and most of them, though not all, kept their ties to their alma mater. According to Igor Goloshchapov, a former KGB special-forces commando who is now a spokesman for almost 800,000 private security men,

In the 1990s we had one objective: to survive and preserve our skills. We did not consider ourselves to be separate from those who stayed in the FSB. We shared everything with them and we saw our work as just another form of serving the interests of the state. We knew that there would come a moment when we would be called upon.

That moment came on New Year’s Eve 1999, when Mr Yeltsin resigned and, despite his views about the KGB, handed over the reins of power to Mr Putin, the man he had put in charge of the FSB in 1998 and made prime minister a year later.

The inner circle

As the new president saw things, his first task was to restore the management of the country, consolidate political power and neutralise alternative sources of influence: oligarchs, regional governors, the media, parliament, opposition parties and non-governmental organisations. His KGB buddies helped him with the task.

The most politically active oligarchs, Mr Berezovsky, who had helped Mr Putin come to power, and Mr Gusinsky, were pushed out of the country, and their television channels were taken back into state hands. Mr Khodorkovsky, Russia’s richest man, was more stubborn. Despite several warnings, he continued to support opposition parties and NGOs and refused to leave Russia. In 2003 the FSB arrested him and, after a show trial, helped put him in jail.

To deal with unruly regional governors, Mr Putin appointed special envoys with powers of supervision and control. Most of them were KGB veterans. The governors lost their budgets and their seats in the upper house of the Russian parliament. Later the voters lost their right to elect them.

All the strategic decisions, according to Ms Kryshtanovskaya, were and still are made by the small group of people who have formed Mr Putin’s informal politburo. They include two deputy heads of the presidential administration: Igor Sechin, who officially controls the flow of documents but also oversees economic matters, and Viktor Ivanov, responsible for personnel in the Kremlin and beyond. Then come Nikolai Patrushev, the head of the FSB, and Sergei Ivanov, a former defence minister and now the first deputy prime minister. All are from St Petersburg, and all served in intelligence or counter-intelligence. Mr Sechin is the only one who does not advertise his background.

That two of the most influential men, Mr Sechin and Viktor Ivanov, hold only fairly modest posts (each is a deputy head) and seldom appear in public is misleading. It was, after all, common Soviet practice to have a deputy, often linked to the KGB, who carried more weight than his notional boss. “These people feel more comfortable when they are in the shadows,” explains Ms Kryshtanovskaya.

In any event, each of these KGB veterans has a plethora of followers in other state institutions. One of Mr Patrushev’s former deputies, also from the KGB, is the minister of the interior, in charge of the police. Sergei Ivanov still commands authority within the army’s headquarters. Mr Sechin has close family ties to the minister of justice. The prosecution service, which in Soviet times at least nominally controlled the KGB‘s work, has now become its instrument, along with the tax police.

The political clout of these siloviki is backed by (or has resulted in) state companies with enormous financial resources. Mr Sechin, for example, is the chairman of Rosneft, Russia’s largest state-run oil company. Viktor Ivanov heads the board of directors of Almaz-Antei, the country’s main producer of air-defence rockets, and of Aeroflot, the national airline. Sergei Ivanov oversees the military-industrial complex and is in charge of the newly created aircraft-industry monopoly.

But the siloviki reach farther, into all areas of Russian life. They can be found not just in the law-enforcement agencies but in the ministries of economy, transport, natural resources, telecoms and culture. Several KGB veterans occupy senior management posts in Gazprom, Russia’s biggest company, and its pocket bank, Gazprombank (whose vice-president is the 26-year-old son of Sergei Ivanov).

Alexei Gromov, Mr Putin’s trusted press secretary, sits on the board of Channel One, Russia’s main television channel. The railway monopoly is headed by Vladimir Yakunin, a former diplomat who served his country at the United Nations in New York and is believed to have held a high rank in the KGB. Sergei Chemezov, Mr Putin’s old KGB friend from his days in Dresden (where the president worked from 1985 to 1990), is in charge of Rosoboronexport, a state arms agency that has grown on his watch into a vast conglomerate. The list goes on.

Many officers of the active reserve have been seconded to Russia’s big companies, both private and state-controlled, where they draw a salary while also remaining on the FSB payroll. “We must make sure that companies don’t make decisions that are not in the interest of the state,” one current FSB colonel explains. Being an active-reserve officer in a firm is, says another KGB veteran, a dream job: “You get a huge salary and you get to keep your FSB card.” One such active-reserve officer is the 26-year-old son of Mr Patrushev who was last year seconded from the FSB to Rosneft, where he is now advising Mr Sechin. (After seven months at Rosneft, Mr Putin awarded Andrei Patrushev the Order of Honour, citing his professional successes and “many years of conscientious work”.) Rosneft was the main recipient of Yukos’s assets after the firm was destroyed.

The attack on Yukos, which entered its decisive stage just as Mr Sechin was appointed to Rosneft, was the first and most blatant example of property redistribution towards the siloviki, but not the only one. Mikhail Gutseriev, the owner of Russneft, a fast-growing oil company, was this month forced to give up his business after being accused of illegal activities. For a time, he had refused; but, as he explained, “they tightened the screws” and one state agency after another—the general prosecutor’s office, the tax police, the interior ministry—began conducting checks on him.

From oligarchy to spookocracy

The transfer of financial wealth from the oligarchs to the siloviki was perhaps inevitable. It certainly met with no objection from most Russians, who have little sympathy for “robber barons”. It even earned the siloviki a certain popularity. But whether they will make a success of managing their newly acquired assets is doubtful. “They know how to break up a company or to confiscate something. But they don’t know how to manage a business. They use force simply because they don’t know any other method,” says an ex-KGB spook who now works in business.

Curiously, the concentration of such power and economic resources in the hands of a small group of siloviki, who identify themselves with the state, has not alienated people in the lower ranks of the security services. There is trickle-down of a sort: the salary of an average FSB operative has gone up several times over the past decade, and a bit of freelancing is tolerated. Besides, many Russians inside and outside the ranks believe that the transfer of assets from private hands to the siloviki is in the interests of the state. “They are getting their own back and they have the right to do so,” says Mr Goloshchapov.

The rights of the siloviki, however, have nothing to do with the formal kind that are spelled out in laws or in the constitution. What they are claiming is a special mission to restore the power of the state, save Russia from disintegration and frustrate the enemies that might weaken it. Such idealistic sentiments, says Mr Kondaurov, coexist with an opportunistic and cynical eagerness to seize the situation for personal or institutional gain.

The security servicemen present themselves as a tight brotherhood entitled to break any laws for the sake of their mission. Their high language is laced with profanity, and their nationalism is often combined with contempt for ordinary people. They are, however, loyal to each other.

Competition to enter the service is intense. The KGB picked its recruits carefully. Drawn from various institutes and universities, they then went to special KGB schools. Today the FSB Academy in Moscow attracts the children of senior siloviki; a vast new building will double its size. The point, says Mr Galeotti, the British analyst, “is not just what you learn, but who you meet there”.

Graduates of the FSB Academy may well agree. “A Chekist is a breed,” says a former FSB general. A good KGB heritage—a father or grandfather, say, who worked for the service—is highly valued by today’s siloviki. Marriages between siloviki clans are also encouraged.

Viktor Cherkesov, the head of Russia’s drug-control agency, who was still hunting dissidents in the late 1980s, has summed up the FSB psychology in an article that has become the manifesto of the siloviki and a call for consolidation.

We [siloviki] must understand that we are one whole. History ruled that the weight of supporting the Russian state should fall on our shoulders. I believe in our ability, when we feel danger, to put aside everything petty and to remain faithful to our oath.

As well as invoking secular patriotism, Russia’s security bosses can readily find allies among the priesthood. Next to the FSB building in Lubyanka Square stands the 17th-century church of the Holy Wisdom, “restored in August 2001with zealous help from the FSB,” says a plaque. Inside, freshly painted icons gleam with gold. “Thank God there is the FSB. All power is from God and so is theirs,” says Father Alexander, who leads the service. A former KGB general agrees: “They really believe that they were chosen and are guided by God and that even the high oil prices they have benefited from are God’s will.”

Sergei Grigoryants, who has often been interrogated and twice imprisoned (for anti-Soviet propaganda) by the KGB, says the security chiefs believe “that they are the only ones who have the real picture and understanding of the world.” At the centre of this picture is an exaggerated sense of the enemy, which justifies their very existence: without enemies, what are they for? “They believe they can see enemies where ordinary people can’t,” says Ms Kryshtanovskaya.

“A few years ago, we succumbed to the illusion that we don’t have enemies and we have paid dearly for that,” Mr Putin told the FSB in 1999. It is a view shared by most KGB veterans and their successors. The greatest danger comes from the West, whose aim is supposedly to weaken Russia and create disorder. “They want to make Russia dependent on their technologies,” says a current FSB staffer. “They have flooded our market with their goods. Thank God we still have nuclear arms.” The siege mentality of the siloviki and their anti-Westernism have played well with the Russian public. Mr Goloshchapov, the private agents’ spokesman, expresses the mood this way: “In Gorbachev’s time Russia was liked by the West and what did we get for it? We have surrendered everything: eastern Europe, Ukraine, Georgia. NATO has moved to our borders.”

From this perspective, anyone who plays into the West’s hands at home is the internal enemy. In this category are the last free-thinking journalists, the last NGOs sponsored by the West and the few liberal politicians who still share Western values.

To sense the depth of these feelings, consider the response of one FSB officer to the killing of Anna Politkovskaya, a journalist whose books criticising Mr Putin and his brutal war in Chechnya are better known outside than inside Russia. “I don’t know who killed her, but her articles were beneficial to the Western press. She deserved what she got.” And so, by this token, did Litvinenko, the ex-KGB officer poisoned by polonium in London last year.

In such a climate, the idea that Russia’s security services are entitled to deal ruthlessly with enemies of the state, wherever they may be, has gained wide acceptance and is supported by a new set of laws. One, aimed at “extremism”, gives the FSB and other agencies ample scope to pursue anyone who acts or speaks against the Kremlin. It has already been invoked against independent analysts and journalists. A lawyer who complained to the Constitutional Court about the FSB‘s illegal tapping of his client’s telephone has been accused of disclosing state secrets. Several scientists who collaborated with foreign firms are in jail for treason.

Despite their loyalty to old Soviet roots, today’s security bosses differ from their predecessors. They do not want a return to communist ideology or an end to capitalism, whose fruits they enjoy. They have none of the asceticism of their forebears. Nor do they relish mass repression: in a country where fear runs deep, attacking selected individuals does the job. But the concentration of such power and money in the hands of the security services does not bode well for Russia.

And not very good at their job

The creation of enemies may smooth over clan disagreements and fuel nationalism, but it does not make the country more secure or prosperous. While the FSB reports on the ever-rising numbers of foreign spies, accuses scientists of treason and hails its “brotherhood”, Russia remains one of the most criminalised, corrupt and bureaucratic countries in the world.

During the crisis at a school in Beslan in 2004, the FSB was good at harassing journalists trying to find out the truth. But it could not even cordon off the school in which the hostages were held. Under the governorship of an ex-FSB colleague of Mr Putin, Ingushetia, the republic that borders Chechnya, has descended into a new theatre of war. The army is plagued by crime and bullying. Private businessmen are regularly hassled by law-enforcement agencies. Russia’s foreign policy has turned out to be self-fulfilling: by perpetually denouncing enemies on every front, it has helped to turn many countries from potential friends into nervous adversaries.

The rise to power of the KGB veterans should not have been surprising. In many ways, argues Inna Solovyova, a Russian cultural historian, it had to do with the qualities that Russians find appealing in their rulers: firmness, reserve, authority and a degree of mystery. “The KGB fitted this description, or at least knew how to seem to fit it.”

But are they doing the country any good? “People who come from the KGB are tacticians. We have never been taught to solve strategic tasks,” says Mr Kondaurov. The biggest problem of all, he and a few others say, is the agency’s loss of professionalism. He blushes when he talks about the polonium capers in London. “We never sank to this level,” he sighs. “What a blow to the country’s reputation!”

Part II: Putin’s People

“OUR pilots have been grounded for too long. They are happy to start a new life.” So said Vladimir Putin as he sent Russia’s nuclear bombers back aloft on the world-spanning patrols they had suspended after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This comes hard on the heels of talk of reopening a Russian naval base in the Mediterranean, joint war games with China and the planting of the Russian flag in the polar seabed. The Soviet Union is dead and communism long buried. But Mr Putin wants you to know that the Russian bear is back—wearing a snarl with its designer sunglasses.

How has this situation come about? It is tempting to search for mistakes by Western governments, to look for the culprits who “lost Russia”. Yet as our briefing this week explains, the role of outsiders has been secondary. The best way to understand both Mr Putin’s ascent into the Kremlin and his rule since is to see them as the remarkable recovery of the culture, mentality and view of the world of the old KGB.

When Mr Putin was plucked from obscurity to become first Boris Yeltsin’s prime minister and later his successor as Russia’s president, few in the West had heard of this former KGB officer, who had briefly been head of the FSB, the KGB‘s post-Soviet successor. Just before he became president, Mr Putin told his colleagues that a group of FSB operatives, “dispatched under cover to work in the government of the Russian federation”, was successfully fulfilling its task. It was probably a joke. Yet during his two terms since then, men from the FSB and its sister outfits have indeed grabbed control of the government, economy and security forces. Three out of four senior Russian officials today were once affiliated to the KGB and other security and military organisations.

Why they do it

What motivates these so-called siloviki? In part, the wish for revenge on those who challenged them in the early 1990s, especially after the abortive KGB coup of August 1991. Greed may be the most powerful motive: some Kremlin insiders have hugely enriched themselves in the past decade, and corruption may be worse even than in the later Yeltsin years. But the new elite also has an ideology of sorts. They see the break-up of the Soviet Union as, in Mr Putin’s words, the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century. Capitalising on a widespread sense that Russia has been humiliated, they want to create as mighty a state as the Soviet Union once was. They see the West as a foe bent on stopping them.

In this, Russia’s rulers have strong domestic support. It is hard to gauge Mr Putin’s popularity in a country with such tightly controlled media, but his opinion-poll ratings are impressively high. That nobody doubts his ability to choose his own successor owes a lot to his suppression of all dissent, but it reflects also the fact that voters have little love for the tiny liberal opposition remaining. Thanks to GDP growth that has averaged almost 7% a year under Mr Putin, many Russians feel better off, even if a lot are still poor. And many share the desire to reassert Russia’s greatness—and a deep-rooted belief that the West is Russia’s natural enemy.

It is foolish for people in the West to deny that Russia is a great power and that, in some ways, its influence has increased. When Mr Putin became president, its GDP was the world’s tenth-biggest and foreign reserves stood at $8.5 billion. Today Russia’s economy is the world’s eighth-largest, and the reserves are $407.5 billion. The Kremlin has played adeptly on Europe’s dependence on Russian gas to enhance its influence. On issues such as Kosovo or Iran, Russia has used its seat on the UN Security Council to force the West to pay it attention.

To achieve true greatness, unclench that fist

Yet the siloviki‘s ambitions remain misguided. That is not because there is anything illegitimate about wanting a strong Russia. What is wrong is how they define that strength—in the Soviet terms of awe and anxiety—and how they pursue it. The economy, for a start, is heavily dependent on high prices for oil, gas and other commodities that may not last. Russia is weak in manufacturing, services and high-tech industries. Putting spies in charge of big firms is a recipe for failure: they know how to grab assets and jail foes, but not how to run real businesses. Foreign investors may still covet Russia’s natural-resource sector, but a climate in which assets can be arbitrarily taken back by state officials and then redistributed to cronies is not welcoming. Both foreign and, more strikingly, domestic investment are very low compared with China.

Nor is it sensible to revive Russia’s old anti-Western, zero-sum strategic thinking. The West tried to be a friend in the Yeltsin years, but has since been put off by Russian belligerence. A resurgent Russia can throw its weight around the neighbourhood and intimidate ex-Soviet republics such as Georgia, Ukraine and the Baltics; but by alienating its neighbours Moscow harms its own interests too. By dint of size and military strength, Russia is a power in the world. Yet today even the “soft power” that the Soviet Union once wielded through communism has mostly gone. In its place is only fear.

The biggest misreading of all is over Russia’s own political future. The siloviki have shown they can squash opposition, suborn the courts and stay in charge. But, as in all autocracies, they are acutely nervous about the future. Mr Putin’s popularity will not easily transfer even to a hand-picked successor. More generally, as ordinary Russians get richer, they may grow dissatisfied with their present masters, especially when they see them stealing and mismanaging the economy. Russia has huge problems: crime, poor infrastructure, secessionism and chaos in the north Caucasus, appalling human-rights abuses and a looming demographic catastrophe. To counterbalance these woes, the new elite may resort to even wilder forms of nationalism; and that nationalism could turn into a monster that even its creators cannot control.

In truth, the biggest threats to Russia’s future stem not from its “enemies” but from internal weaknesses, some of them self-inflicted. For a Russian ruler, or ruling class, to accept that truth would take real courage—and real patriotism.