Daily Archives: March 7, 2008

March 7, 2008 — Contents

FRIDAY MARCH 7 CONTENTS

(1) EDITORIAL: Paying the Piperski

(2) Annals of Russian Pseudo-Journalism

(3) Annals of Russia’s Neo-Soviet Propaganda

(4) Annals of Russia’s Paranoid Neo-Soviet Crackdown

(5) Annals of Espionage

(6) Shteyngart: Russia is a Dead Country

NOTE: Oleg Kozlovsky has posted to his blog for the first time since December 20, 2007. He writes: “I’ve been demobilized. I am in Moscow. I’m looking forward to meeting everyone at 8 pm on March 4th at the Biligve Club. The next day at 11:00 am I’m to go to the Izmailovsky military enlistment office to sign transfer papers for the reserves, and I invite all interested persons to attend, including jouranlists :-)” He also indicates he is meeting with journalists from Echo of Moscow radio and the New Times magazine. Publius Pundit has the details.

NOTE: Article XIX, the global campaign for freedom of expression, has released a scathing report on Russia in PDF. Click here to read it.

EDITORIAL: Paying the Piperski

EDITORIAL

Paying the Piperski

The Kremlin’s own data admits that Russia has incurred 3.5 overall consumer price inflation in the first two months of this year, putting it on pace for 21% inflation by the end of the year.

These figures are horrifying by themselves, but we’ll mince no words in saying that we don’t believe them. The idea that the Kremlin would forthrightly tell the world if the figures were much worse is one that could only be accepted by an intellectual invalid. We assume Russia could easily be under-reporting this type of negative performance data by 50% or more.

And that’s not the end of it. Because, as we’ve said many times before, in an economy like Russia’s with such a vast hoard of desperately poor people (Russian men don’t live to see their 60th year on average), the overall inflation rate (which would include big-ticket items like cars and plasma TVs) is totally meaningless. The figure that’s important is the one that applies to the basket of goods and services normal Russian people can actually afford — and that figure is always much higher than the overall rate where Russia is concerned. Most recently, food prices have been shockingly burdensome, leading the Kremlin to take the breathtaking step of imposing Soviet-style price controls. Even if the Kremlin’s data is correct, the inflation rate on this basket of affordable items could easily be above 30%.

Meanwhile, Moody’s warned that “a gradually shrinking current account surplus coupled with the rising debt of state-controlled corporations pose challenges for Russia” and noted that Russia’s current account surplus fell nearly 20% in 2007 to $77 billion from a record $94 billion in 2006 “due to rapidly rising imports.” Moody’s observed: “Russia’s total external private sector debt amounts to $378 billion. Debt payments are becoming a larger and larger negative on the current account.”

What’s happening is simple: the income Russia is deriving from the spike in world oil prices is being used to drive up consumer prices within Russia generally and specifically to buy products from abroad that Russia can’t make itself. And, it’s being used to buy weapons, sow dissent and tumult in the Middle East (to further prop up oil prices) and provoke a new cold war, with an attendant arms race that will ultimately bankrupt the country.

What it’s not being used for is to deliver social services the people of Russia need, most especially investment in infrastructure and domestic manufacturing, so that Russians could buy their own products and create their own jobs rather than buying foreign products and creating foreign jobs.

Why, you may ask, should this be so. The reason is quite simple: Because if the Kremlin used Russia’s oil proceeds to support the population, that population would become stronger and more independent. Such a population would be harder to govern, more likely to challenge authority, more likely to demand a new form of government not tied to the failed totalitarian policies of the Soviet past. Such a population would be the very last thing the malignant little trolls who govern Russia would wish to have.

But this isn’t to say that this outrageous policy is mostly the fault of those in the Kremlin. It surely isn’t. The Russian people themselves are mostly to blame, because they’ve willingly empowered their regime and turned a blind eye both to its clear policy failures and its outrageous crackdown on civil society. They deserve to suffer.

And suffer they will. Because, remember, Russia is now riding a long period of growth, it is at the very apex of the business cycle, a cycle from which Russia is no more immune than any other country, regardless of the price of oil. When that cycle starts downward, the problems we see now will only be magnified and expanded to the point where they threaten the nation’s survival. Russia is totally lacking in the sort of basic economic fundamentals that could insulate it from the worst ravages of the business cycle.

And despite all this, there was no demand from the people of Russia for debate over economic policy in the presidential elections. No serious attempts were made to criticize Putin’s policy of pouring money into a new cold war, or indeed to question whether any economic policy he has followed (remember, he doesn’t have a single shred of legitimate economic credentials) was the correct one.

Do you dare to imagine what would happen to Russia if a natural downstroke in the national business cycle were to be accompanied by a drop in the price of crude oil, seriously depleting the Kremlin’s cash flow? Can you imagine the havoc that would be wrought on the Russian economy or the extent of the Stalinesque crackdown that would be required to keep the lid on popular dissent?

Sooner or later, and undoubtedly sooner rather than later, Russia will pay the piperski for the obscene and malignant tune to which is has been so recklessly dancing lo these many years. The immutable laws of economics decree that it is so, just as they tolled the bell for the USSR. Little time remains, and less opportunity, for the people of Russia to head themselves away from that abyss.

Annals of Russian Pseudo-Journalism

The Moscow Times reports on the sorry state of “journalism” in Russia:

When Vladimir Putin became president, NTV television was renowned for in-depth political analysis and hard-hitting coverage of breaking news stories such as the then-unfolding war in Chechnya. Now, as Putin prepares to step down, NTV’s standard fare might be best encapsulated in a recent teaser ad for “Profession: Reporter,” the channel’s prime-time investigative program. “Why play with dolls if you can have a living toy?” asked the teaser for an investigation into the lives of 6-year-old mothers. “Who provoked a children’s sexual revolution in Russia?”

The metamorphosis in NTV’s coverage is characteristic of what has happened to television channels and newspapers across the country over the past eight years. Once bristling with criticism of the government and one another, media outlets these days rarely delve beyond the Kremlin line. The authorities, meanwhile, have expanded their arsenal of measures to silence critical journalists to include detaining them as they travel to opposition events, expelling them as national security risks and even accusing them of using pirated software. “An overwhelming number of journalists have accepted the rules of the game to keep their jobs,” said Igor Yakovenko, general secretary of the Russian Union of Journalists. “They understand perfectly well what they need to do. Through the examples of NTV and other media outlets, they have seen what happens to those who don’t take the hint.”

NTV fell under state control after airing critical reports about the second war in Chechnya, undermining public support for efforts by then-acting President Putin to stamp out the insurgency there. After Putin won the 2000 presidential election, prosecutors charged NTV owner Vladimir Gusinsky with fraud, and he was briefly jailed. State energy giant Gazprom then began a bitter struggle to seize NTV over an outstanding debt, finally succeeding in early 2001 and prompting many reporters to resign. NTV’s coverage of Chechnya was severely restricted, and Gusinsky fled the country. As the NTV affair unfolded, the Kremlin set its sights on another television channel, ORT, and its de facto owner, Boris Berezovsky. The channel, now known as Channel One, had a brash anchor named Sergei Dorenko who sharply criticized the crackdown on NTV. Dorenko lost his show after he aired an emotionally charged report about the sinking of the Kursk nuclear submarine in 2000. “That report came out on Sept. 2, and the next program, on Sept. 9, didn’t go on the air,” Dorenko said in a recent interview.

Officially, the program was put on hiatus for the fall and winter, but it never went back on the air. “Spring and summer just wouldn’t come,” Dorenko said. Dorenko accused the Kremlin of censorship. Putin summoned him five times from September 1999, when he was prime minister, until the cancellation of his program, and urged him to be a “member of the team,” Dorenko said at a news conference on Sept. 11, 2000. Dorenko said he had refused each time. ORT general director Konstantin Ernst denied Kremlin censorship and said Dorenko was being punished for disobeying orders to stop speculating that the Kremlin planned to oust Berezovsky from ORT. The state, which owned 51 percent of ORT, reasserted control over the channel five months later when Berezovsky sold his 49 percent stake to businessman Roman Abramovich, who in turn passed it to the Kremlin. Berezovsky has accused the Kremlin of forcing him out. A reshuffle also took place at the third major channel, state-owned RTR, which received a new director, Oleg Dobrodeyev, in January 2000. Dobrodeyev, an NTV veteran, tried to resign when Gazprom took over NTV, but Putin asked him to stay, and he agreed. RTR is now called Rossia.

The Kremlin quickly asserted a tight grip over Rossia, Channel One and NTV, as manifested in their lavish and praise-filled coverage of Putin’s meetings with his ministers and international leaders. A top media freedom activist, Oleg Panfilov, said television news reports began to resemble Soviet-era propaganda in 2005, and stations have increasing embraced the practice, peaking during election campaigns and tense international debates, such as the Kremlin’s fierce opposition to Kosovo’s independence. “Have you seen anyone offering a view that differed from the official position over Kosovo?” said Panfilov, director of the Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations. He said the television channels have failed to give opposition politicians any “significant” airtime to provide alternative viewpoints during election campaigns and allow voters to make a “conscious” choice. NTV spokeswoman Maria Bezborodova said her channel would not comment on its editorial policy for this article. Channel One and Rossia officials asked that questions be submitted in writing in mid-February. No responses had been received by Tuesday.

The Kremlin’s Stance

As testimony to the existence of free media, the government has pointed to the television coverage of the January 2005 protests over the monetization of Soviet-era benefits, which threatened to topple the Cabinet. A senior official at the Federal Press and Mass Media Agency conceded that there are problems with media freedom but insisted that the media is free. “To say that there’s no free speech is a lie about our media, society, country and the government,” said the official, Gennady Kudy. One problem is that many media outlets remain under the control of various levels of government, he said. But the number of independent regional newspapers is growing and has reached at least five in every region, he said.

Putin has put the burden on the media, saying journalists have to fight for freedom in any country. “A decent girl must resist, while a true man must keep insisting,” Putin said, describing relations between the media and the government at an annual news conference in December 2004. “In that sense, we are not better or worse than other countries.” But the problem in Russia, Putin said, is that the media do not make enough money to hold their ground against government pressure. “In my view, we have to make sure that mass media have an economic base for their independence,” he said. Putin made similar comments during a speech to an international newspaper conference in Moscow in June 2006.

The president has also shown contempt toward journalists. In his first public statement about the murder of reporter Anna Politkovskaya, he brushed off her investigations into brutalities in Chechnya as nonevents. “She had minimal influence on political life in Russia,” Putin said in October 2006 after a meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel in Dresden, Germany. Perhaps coincidentally, on Sept. 9, 2000 — the same day that Dorenko’s show went off the air — Putin signed the Information Security Doctrine outlining the government’s new media policy. The lengthy document prohibits censorship and the monopolization of media by the state and calls for media freedom to be promoted. But it also seems to contradict these aims by invoking shadowy foreign and domestic enemies that must be fought through strict state control over the production and distribution of information. The Kremlin set up a satellite television channel in 2005 in an attempt to shape foreign perceptions of the country. The channel, Russia Today, offers reports in English and Arabic.

Pointing to media rollbacks under Putin, Reporters Without Borders, a media watchdog, has called him “Predator of Press Freedoms” and lumped him together with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and Libya’s Muammar Gadhafi. It ranked Russia between Yemen and Tunisia in its most recent media freedom list, saying its evaluation had been determined by Politkovskaya’s murder and a glaring lack of media diversity, especially in television. The group has ranked Russia near the bottom of its list for years.

The Fate of Newspapers

Although television wields more influence because it is the source of information for an estimated 70 percent of Russians, newspapers have also changed under Putin. Most national newspapers belong to businessmen who are on good terms with the Kremlin, while the regional press is under the control of local authorities with just a few exceptions, said Yakovenko, head of the Russian Union of Journalists. Few newspapers investigate Kremlin-sensitive issues like corruption, the difficulties of rebuilding Chechnya and relations with Belarus.

The tightening of screws started with the Segodnya newspaper and Itogi magazine, which went to Gazprom with the rest of Gusinsky’s media empire. Gazprom shut down Segodnya immediately, pointing out that it was loss-making. Most newspapers, however, were also loss-making at the time. Itogi, meanwhile, reinvented itself with a new staff, becoming friendlier to the Kremlin but losing Newsweek as its partner.

The liberal weekly Obshchaya Gazeta died quietly a year later: Its founder and editor, Yegor Yakovlev, sold it to a St. Petersburg businessman who turned around and closed the paper. Then came Noviye Izvestia and Izvestia, which changed hands and style, shifting to more entertaining and pro-Kremlin coverage. National Media Group, a holding controlled by Yury Kovalchuk, a businessman considered to be close to Putin, is now planning to buy Izvestia from Gazprom. Izvestia was sold to Gazprom after it published a harrowing front-page photo of the victims of the Beslan school attack in September 2004. Its editor, Raf Shakirov, was promptly fired after the publication. Komsomolskaya Pravda, the country’s most-read daily tabloid, was in December bought by Oleg Rudnov, who with Kovlachuk owns Bank Rossiya. Kovalchuk also controls Ren-TV, the only national channel in private hands. It occasionally shows interviews with opposition figures such as Eduard Limonov and Boris Nemtsov, but its share of viewers — and political influence — is dwarfed by that of the state-controlled channels.

Only three national newspapers are considered independent, Novaya Gazeta, Kommersant and Vedomosti, which is owned by the parent company of The Moscow Times, Independent Media Sanoma Magazines. But their circulation is negligible compared with the Kremlin-friendly news flow. “The authorities can afford to pay no attention to them,” Yakovenko said. “They are a ghetto for the lovers of pluralism.”

Journalists Under Fire

Despite the minimal impact that investigative reports have on the authorities, reporters remain the targets of attacks and apparent contract killings, as illustrated by Politkovskaya’s death. More recently, Kommersant reporter Ivan Safronov mysteriously fell to his death from the fifth floor of his apartment building in March 2007. Paul Klebnikov, a U.S. journalist of Russian descent, was shot on a Moscow street in July 2004.

Of those who died, it is unclear, how many were targeted over their reporting, with various organizations compiling sometimes conflicting information. The Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations, for instance, does not list Klebnikov as a reporter killed for his work, saying only that the investigation into his death — which concluded that a Chechen separatist had ordered the killing over a 2004 book — left doubts. The center said the same about Safronov.

What is clear is that authorities have resorted to a wider choice of tools to silence the media. One of the latest trends ostensibly has nothing to do with free speech but is about copyright protection.

Novaya Gazeta’s office in Samara had to close last year after police seized all its computers over accusations that they ran on pirated software. The local edition’s editor, Sergei Kurt-Adzhiyev, insisted the software was legal and linked the police raid to the edition’s critical stories about the local authorities, United Russia and an opposition Dissenters’ March. Kurt-Adzhiyev’s daughter was an organizer of the march, one of several countrywide protests that are a brainchild of former world chess champion Garry Kasparov. It took place on the same day that Russia and the European Union held a summit near Samara. “I’ve been taken to court for libel about 20 times, but this is not in fashion any longer,” Kurt-Adzhiyev said by telephone from Samara. “It’s not possible to stop a newspaper with a libel investigation. So where do they hit? A newspaper can’t exist without computers.”

About 90 percent of the computers used by Russian newspapers run pirated software, but the police do not visit newspapers that are loyal to the government, Yakovenko said. “They are using a new type of censorship that never existed before,” he said. Kudy, the official from the Federal Press and Mass Media Agency, warned against classifying the piracy software investigations as an attack on media freedom. He said a court must rule on each case before any conclusions are drawn. The police, who have long detained reporters covering anti-government rallies, appear to have employed a new, preventive tactic under Putin. They detain reporters boarding planes and trains to cover protests and release them only after it is too late to arrive at the event on time.

In another change under Putin, unwritten rules for regional newspapers now come down from the federal authorities, not local officials, Yakovenko said. “There used to be an enormous difference among the regions,” he said. “Now certain rules are set for the country as a whole.” Sometimes, the authorities use state security as a reason to prevent journalists from doing their jobs. Most recently, a foreign reporter for The New Times, a weekly magazine published in Moscow, was denied entry to Russia and sent home to Moldova on security grounds. The decision to expel Natalya Morar came shortly after New Times published her latest investigative report looking into purported money-laundering schemes used by Russian officials. Also, the State Duma has reclassified the libel of public officials as extremism, toughening the penalty for a conviction. The government is using the law in an attempt to punish a reporter in Perm for calling Putin “our good Hitler” in the headline of a story published in December. Other than the Perm case, the only effect the law has had on journalists is to force them to practice self-censorship when writing about the government, said Boris Timoshenko, a researcher at the Glasnost Defense Foundation.

Notably, under Putin Russia saw its first cases of journalists being granted political asylum in another country. Last month, Ukraine offered asylum to Alexander Kosvintsev after he said he had been harassed for reports in his hometown of Kemerovo. Fatima Tlisova, an editor at the North Caucasus bureau of the Regnum news agency, and Yury Bagrov, a Radio Liberty correspondent in the region, received political asylum in the United States last year after complaining of pressure from the authorities. Both were also stringers for The Associated Press.

Challenges Ahead

While advertising is soaring for television, revenues are much lower for newspapers, and many are struggling to get by. Putin’s call for economically self-reliant media is commendable, Yakovenko said, but the government appears to have made every effort to achieve the opposite. The dominance of state-controlled media has undermined the economic viability of independent news organizations by attracting the lion’s share of advertising budgets from businesses, he said. In another inequality, he noted, the government handed 2.6 billion rubles ($108 million) last year to its official Rossiiskaya Gazeta to expand its circulation. “No other publisher has a budget like this. How can you compete under these conditions?” Yakovenko said.

Kudy, the government media official, said the additional copies of Rossiiskaya Gazeta were sent free of charge to disadvantaged groups such as disabled people and World War II veterans and were meant to raise the quality of the news they get. “There’s no end to all kinds of printed rubbish, but there is a lack of quality press that has a balanced coverage of the events in the country and its regions,” he said. Panfilov said some newspapers have brought trouble on themselves, with owners who use them as political weapons. “Such a press doesn’t have a future,” he said. “These journalists are trying to make up for the lack of active politicians. This is bad for journalism as a profession.”

On the bright side, he said, some local newspapers have become major independent voices in their regions. He mentioned Altapress, a Siberian media group in Barnaul, as the best example. “They have learned to resist,” he said. “They have begun to learn the rules. They pay taxes and don’t do politics.” Another improvement in the media, Dorenko said, is that they no longer serve as weapons in the hands of warring businessmen. But with the loss of their belligerence, they also lost diversity, he said. “The press has turned into … a kind of a Kremlin press service,” he said. “When I was news editor at ORT, my only problem was that the news was reported at 6 p.m. because Gusinsky reported his news at 7 p.m.”

Berezovsky and Gusinsky had no chance of hushing up any news because they headed business clans with conflicting interests and would not coordinate their coverage, Dorenko said. “Luckily, there are no wars like that now, but there is no news either,” he said. “The disease was eradicated with the body.” Together with many reporters from NTV, Dorenko ended up as a host at Ekho Moskvy, a radio station that Gazprom swallowed up with the rest of Gusinsky’s media empire but has managed to maintain its editorial independence.

Dorenko said his main source of news now is the Internet, which remains largely untouched by the authorities. “I have an enormous variety of sources, and that is fabulous,” he said

Annals of Russia’s Neo-Soviet Propaganda

The Moscow Times reports:

Last year, weekly tabloid Express Gazeta held a competition for children to draw the Russian president. The winner depicted Vladimir Putin declaring his love to his wife with a single rose. She won a puppy, and not just any puppy, but a relative of Putin’s black Labrador, Connie.

This year’s competition is to draw the future president, and the winner, to be announced in May, will have to settle for a laptop, a cell phone and a teddy bear. Although the election hasn’t taken place, the children taking part all chose the same subject for their drawings, which went on display at the Photo Center of the Union of Journalists this week.

“The children all drew [Dmitry] Medvedev,” said Yekaterina Shumeiko, a spokeswoman for Express Gazeta. The contest started after Putin announced Medvedev as his preferred candidate in December.

Other candidates only appeared in one drawing, Shumeiko said. A child drew a scene involving Medvedev, Vladimir Zhirinovsky and Andrei Bogdanov, but she made it clear that Medvedev was the winner.

One thousand children aged 7 to 16 drew pictures of Medvedev in a variety of poses. The two most common themes were weightlifting and orphanage visits. The children who entered obviously picked up on his biography. In his university days, he liked weightlifting and rowing. One of his most noticeable characteristics, his diminutive height, does not come across in the drawings.
One drawing shows Medvedev weightlifting in a red singlet emblazoned with the word Russia. He holds a bar decorated with words including “peace,” “sport,” “school” and “children.” A more ambitious picture shows him dressed in a leotard, lifting up a map of Russia. He is helped by Putin, who is wearing judo gear.

“Another interesting point is that the kids have drawn Medvedev and Putin together in many of the entries, so it’s obvious that the children link Medvedev and Putin,” Shumeiko said.

A drawing of them together shows two statuesque leaders walking side by side along a red carpet, with an airplane in the backround. It is called “Putin and Medvedev on a joint trip overseas.”

Medvedev’s visit to a maternity ward last year was also a popular source of inspiration, resulting in at least three drawings. One picture shows him holding a baby girl and baby boy in his arms. Behind him is a row of babies in pink and blue swaddling clothes.
While Shumeiko insisted that nothing was stage-managed, some of the drawings include messages asking parents to vote for Medvedev. One shows him standing under a banner with the slogan “Vote for Medvedev” and drawings of a syringe and a cigarette with red lines through them. In front of him, the members of the audience all cheerfully raise their hands to vote for him.

“One girl drew a picture. Her letter said, ‘I want my parents to vote for Medvedev. If he is trusted by Putin, who is trusted by all of Russia, then we should trust him too,'” Shumeiko said.

Another popular theme is international affairs. One drawing shows Medvedev shaking hand with the German president. In another, he sits at a table with George W. Bush. And one shows people of different nationalities holding hands around a globe with the slogan “Our President is for Peace.” Russia is the only country marked on the globe.

“People nowadays say our children are apolitical, that they grow up not caring about issues, but this competition goes to prove this is not the case,” Shumeiko said.

Annals of Russia’s Neo-Soviet Propaganda

The Moscow Times reports:

Last year, weekly tabloid Express Gazeta held a competition for children to draw the Russian president. The winner depicted Vladimir Putin declaring his love to his wife with a single rose. She won a puppy, and not just any puppy, but a relative of Putin’s black Labrador, Connie.

This year’s competition is to draw the future president, and the winner, to be announced in May, will have to settle for a laptop, a cell phone and a teddy bear. Although the election hasn’t taken place, the children taking part all chose the same subject for their drawings, which went on display at the Photo Center of the Union of Journalists this week.

“The children all drew [Dmitry] Medvedev,” said Yekaterina Shumeiko, a spokeswoman for Express Gazeta. The contest started after Putin announced Medvedev as his preferred candidate in December.

Other candidates only appeared in one drawing, Shumeiko said. A child drew a scene involving Medvedev, Vladimir Zhirinovsky and Andrei Bogdanov, but she made it clear that Medvedev was the winner.

One thousand children aged 7 to 16 drew pictures of Medvedev in a variety of poses. The two most common themes were weightlifting and orphanage visits. The children who entered obviously picked up on his biography. In his university days, he liked weightlifting and rowing. One of his most noticeable characteristics, his diminutive height, does not come across in the drawings.
One drawing shows Medvedev weightlifting in a red singlet emblazoned with the word Russia. He holds a bar decorated with words including “peace,” “sport,” “school” and “children.” A more ambitious picture shows him dressed in a leotard, lifting up a map of Russia. He is helped by Putin, who is wearing judo gear.

“Another interesting point is that the kids have drawn Medvedev and Putin together in many of the entries, so it’s obvious that the children link Medvedev and Putin,” Shumeiko said.

A drawing of them together shows two statuesque leaders walking side by side along a red carpet, with an airplane in the backround. It is called “Putin and Medvedev on a joint trip overseas.”

Medvedev’s visit to a maternity ward last year was also a popular source of inspiration, resulting in at least three drawings. One picture shows him holding a baby girl and baby boy in his arms. Behind him is a row of babies in pink and blue swaddling clothes.
While Shumeiko insisted that nothing was stage-managed, some of the drawings include messages asking parents to vote for Medvedev. One shows him standing under a banner with the slogan “Vote for Medvedev” and drawings of a syringe and a cigarette with red lines through them. In front of him, the members of the audience all cheerfully raise their hands to vote for him.

“One girl drew a picture. Her letter said, ‘I want my parents to vote for Medvedev. If he is trusted by Putin, who is trusted by all of Russia, then we should trust him too,'” Shumeiko said.

Another popular theme is international affairs. One drawing shows Medvedev shaking hand with the German president. In another, he sits at a table with George W. Bush. And one shows people of different nationalities holding hands around a globe with the slogan “Our President is for Peace.” Russia is the only country marked on the globe.

“People nowadays say our children are apolitical, that they grow up not caring about issues, but this competition goes to prove this is not the case,” Shumeiko said.

Annals of Russia’s Neo-Soviet Propaganda

The Moscow Times reports:

Last year, weekly tabloid Express Gazeta held a competition for children to draw the Russian president. The winner depicted Vladimir Putin declaring his love to his wife with a single rose. She won a puppy, and not just any puppy, but a relative of Putin’s black Labrador, Connie.

This year’s competition is to draw the future president, and the winner, to be announced in May, will have to settle for a laptop, a cell phone and a teddy bear. Although the election hasn’t taken place, the children taking part all chose the same subject for their drawings, which went on display at the Photo Center of the Union of Journalists this week.

“The children all drew [Dmitry] Medvedev,” said Yekaterina Shumeiko, a spokeswoman for Express Gazeta. The contest started after Putin announced Medvedev as his preferred candidate in December.

Other candidates only appeared in one drawing, Shumeiko said. A child drew a scene involving Medvedev, Vladimir Zhirinovsky and Andrei Bogdanov, but she made it clear that Medvedev was the winner.

One thousand children aged 7 to 16 drew pictures of Medvedev in a variety of poses. The two most common themes were weightlifting and orphanage visits. The children who entered obviously picked up on his biography. In his university days, he liked weightlifting and rowing. One of his most noticeable characteristics, his diminutive height, does not come across in the drawings.
One drawing shows Medvedev weightlifting in a red singlet emblazoned with the word Russia. He holds a bar decorated with words including “peace,” “sport,” “school” and “children.” A more ambitious picture shows him dressed in a leotard, lifting up a map of Russia. He is helped by Putin, who is wearing judo gear.

“Another interesting point is that the kids have drawn Medvedev and Putin together in many of the entries, so it’s obvious that the children link Medvedev and Putin,” Shumeiko said.

A drawing of them together shows two statuesque leaders walking side by side along a red carpet, with an airplane in the backround. It is called “Putin and Medvedev on a joint trip overseas.”

Medvedev’s visit to a maternity ward last year was also a popular source of inspiration, resulting in at least three drawings. One picture shows him holding a baby girl and baby boy in his arms. Behind him is a row of babies in pink and blue swaddling clothes.
While Shumeiko insisted that nothing was stage-managed, some of the drawings include messages asking parents to vote for Medvedev. One shows him standing under a banner with the slogan “Vote for Medvedev” and drawings of a syringe and a cigarette with red lines through them. In front of him, the members of the audience all cheerfully raise their hands to vote for him.

“One girl drew a picture. Her letter said, ‘I want my parents to vote for Medvedev. If he is trusted by Putin, who is trusted by all of Russia, then we should trust him too,'” Shumeiko said.

Another popular theme is international affairs. One drawing shows Medvedev shaking hand with the German president. In another, he sits at a table with George W. Bush. And one shows people of different nationalities holding hands around a globe with the slogan “Our President is for Peace.” Russia is the only country marked on the globe.

“People nowadays say our children are apolitical, that they grow up not caring about issues, but this competition goes to prove this is not the case,” Shumeiko said.

Annals of Russia’s Neo-Soviet Propaganda

The Moscow Times reports:

Last year, weekly tabloid Express Gazeta held a competition for children to draw the Russian president. The winner depicted Vladimir Putin declaring his love to his wife with a single rose. She won a puppy, and not just any puppy, but a relative of Putin’s black Labrador, Connie.

This year’s competition is to draw the future president, and the winner, to be announced in May, will have to settle for a laptop, a cell phone and a teddy bear. Although the election hasn’t taken place, the children taking part all chose the same subject for their drawings, which went on display at the Photo Center of the Union of Journalists this week.

“The children all drew [Dmitry] Medvedev,” said Yekaterina Shumeiko, a spokeswoman for Express Gazeta. The contest started after Putin announced Medvedev as his preferred candidate in December.

Other candidates only appeared in one drawing, Shumeiko said. A child drew a scene involving Medvedev, Vladimir Zhirinovsky and Andrei Bogdanov, but she made it clear that Medvedev was the winner.

One thousand children aged 7 to 16 drew pictures of Medvedev in a variety of poses. The two most common themes were weightlifting and orphanage visits. The children who entered obviously picked up on his biography. In his university days, he liked weightlifting and rowing. One of his most noticeable characteristics, his diminutive height, does not come across in the drawings.
One drawing shows Medvedev weightlifting in a red singlet emblazoned with the word Russia. He holds a bar decorated with words including “peace,” “sport,” “school” and “children.” A more ambitious picture shows him dressed in a leotard, lifting up a map of Russia. He is helped by Putin, who is wearing judo gear.

“Another interesting point is that the kids have drawn Medvedev and Putin together in many of the entries, so it’s obvious that the children link Medvedev and Putin,” Shumeiko said.

A drawing of them together shows two statuesque leaders walking side by side along a red carpet, with an airplane in the backround. It is called “Putin and Medvedev on a joint trip overseas.”

Medvedev’s visit to a maternity ward last year was also a popular source of inspiration, resulting in at least three drawings. One picture shows him holding a baby girl and baby boy in his arms. Behind him is a row of babies in pink and blue swaddling clothes.
While Shumeiko insisted that nothing was stage-managed, some of the drawings include messages asking parents to vote for Medvedev. One shows him standing under a banner with the slogan “Vote for Medvedev” and drawings of a syringe and a cigarette with red lines through them. In front of him, the members of the audience all cheerfully raise their hands to vote for him.

“One girl drew a picture. Her letter said, ‘I want my parents to vote for Medvedev. If he is trusted by Putin, who is trusted by all of Russia, then we should trust him too,'” Shumeiko said.

Another popular theme is international affairs. One drawing shows Medvedev shaking hand with the German president. In another, he sits at a table with George W. Bush. And one shows people of different nationalities holding hands around a globe with the slogan “Our President is for Peace.” Russia is the only country marked on the globe.

“People nowadays say our children are apolitical, that they grow up not caring about issues, but this competition goes to prove this is not the case,” Shumeiko said.

Annals of Russia’s Neo-Soviet Propaganda

The Moscow Times reports:

Last year, weekly tabloid Express Gazeta held a competition for children to draw the Russian president. The winner depicted Vladimir Putin declaring his love to his wife with a single rose. She won a puppy, and not just any puppy, but a relative of Putin’s black Labrador, Connie.

This year’s competition is to draw the future president, and the winner, to be announced in May, will have to settle for a laptop, a cell phone and a teddy bear. Although the election hasn’t taken place, the children taking part all chose the same subject for their drawings, which went on display at the Photo Center of the Union of Journalists this week.

“The children all drew [Dmitry] Medvedev,” said Yekaterina Shumeiko, a spokeswoman for Express Gazeta. The contest started after Putin announced Medvedev as his preferred candidate in December.

Other candidates only appeared in one drawing, Shumeiko said. A child drew a scene involving Medvedev, Vladimir Zhirinovsky and Andrei Bogdanov, but she made it clear that Medvedev was the winner.

One thousand children aged 7 to 16 drew pictures of Medvedev in a variety of poses. The two most common themes were weightlifting and orphanage visits. The children who entered obviously picked up on his biography. In his university days, he liked weightlifting and rowing. One of his most noticeable characteristics, his diminutive height, does not come across in the drawings.
One drawing shows Medvedev weightlifting in a red singlet emblazoned with the word Russia. He holds a bar decorated with words including “peace,” “sport,” “school” and “children.” A more ambitious picture shows him dressed in a leotard, lifting up a map of Russia. He is helped by Putin, who is wearing judo gear.

“Another interesting point is that the kids have drawn Medvedev and Putin together in many of the entries, so it’s obvious that the children link Medvedev and Putin,” Shumeiko said.

A drawing of them together shows two statuesque leaders walking side by side along a red carpet, with an airplane in the backround. It is called “Putin and Medvedev on a joint trip overseas.”

Medvedev’s visit to a maternity ward last year was also a popular source of inspiration, resulting in at least three drawings. One picture shows him holding a baby girl and baby boy in his arms. Behind him is a row of babies in pink and blue swaddling clothes.
While Shumeiko insisted that nothing was stage-managed, some of the drawings include messages asking parents to vote for Medvedev. One shows him standing under a banner with the slogan “Vote for Medvedev” and drawings of a syringe and a cigarette with red lines through them. In front of him, the members of the audience all cheerfully raise their hands to vote for him.

“One girl drew a picture. Her letter said, ‘I want my parents to vote for Medvedev. If he is trusted by Putin, who is trusted by all of Russia, then we should trust him too,'” Shumeiko said.

Another popular theme is international affairs. One drawing shows Medvedev shaking hand with the German president. In another, he sits at a table with George W. Bush. And one shows people of different nationalities holding hands around a globe with the slogan “Our President is for Peace.” Russia is the only country marked on the globe.

“People nowadays say our children are apolitical, that they grow up not caring about issues, but this competition goes to prove this is not the case,” Shumeiko said.

Russia’s Paranoid, Neo-Soviet, Xenophobic Crackdown on Foreigners Continues

Reuters reports:

Russia may limit foreign ownership of Internet providers, electronic mass media and publishing houses, extending a list of industries deemed strategic, a senior lawmaker told Reuters on Wednesday.

Russia’s parliament is set to debate the controversial law this month amid a tussle between government officials and the security services over what industries should be deemed sensitive and how much to limit foreign investment in them.

“We need to defend our public space from foreign firms, which may seize dominant positions,” said Martin Shakkum, head of the parliament’s land and construction committee, which is responsible for preparing the new law.

According to the draft law, a foreign company seeking a controlling stake in a Russian firm working in a sector deemed strategic will need to seek a permission from a special government committee. Outgoing President Vladimir Putin secured tight control over national television channels and other major media during his eight-year rule, prompting criticism from Western governments and human rights groups.

The media arm of state-controlled gas export monopoly Gazprom (GAZP.MM: Quote, Profile, Research) controls national television channel NTV, Izvestia newspaper and even the Ekho Moskvy radio station, which sometimes criticises the Kremlin.

MORE SECTORS

Smaller traditional media outlets as well as Internet media enjoy relative freedom and have been targeted by international companies seeking to tap Russia’s booming advertising market.

Sweden’s Modern Times Group (MTGb.ST: Quote, Profile, Research) owns 40 percent of television firm CTC Media Inc (CTCM.O: Quote, Profile, Research) and Finland’s SanomaWSOY (SWS1V.HE: Quote, Profile, Research) owns the publisher of business daily Vedomosti. Mobile operator Vimpelcom (VIP.N: Quote, Profile, Research), where Norwegian group Telenor (TEL.OL: Quote, Profile, Research) has a blocking stake, provides Internet services through recently acquired fixed-line operator Golden Telecom. Other major Internet providers are Russian-owned.

“The presidential administration wants to put more sectors on the list, they want to control mass media, publishing and the Internet. In the last draft there were 40 sectors, now there will be 43 to 45,” a senior government source told Reuters.

The Duma passed the draft at a first reading last September, over two years after Putin ordered officials to more clearly draw up legislation to define rules on foreign investment.

Russian officials had pledged the law would be passed last year, before the parliamentary and presidential election, but the second hearing was delayed after intervention by the security services.

The parliament also asked the government to submit amendments to the subsoil law, which defines strategic natural resource deposits. The new investment law would then apply curbs to exploration of such deposits.

Industry sources told Reuters the Federal Security Service (FSB) wanted the limits on foreign investment in exploration of strategic deposits to apply to existing licences, causing an outcry among foreign investors already working in Russia.

Annals of Espionage

The Canadian Free Press reports:

In what could be the biggest State Department scandal since State Department official and United Nations founder Alger Hiss was exposed as a Soviet spy, a top Clinton State Department official and former Time magazine journalist has been identified as having been a trusted contact of the Russian intelligence service.

The sensational charge against Strobe Talbott is made in a new book based on interviews with a Russian defector. The book, Comrade J, by veteran author and reporter Pete Earley, identifies Talbott as having been manipulated by a Russian official working for Russian intelligence in order to get information about U.S. foreign policy. The same book describes the United Nations as a major base of espionage operations for Russia in the U.S.

But the story gets much more scandalous than that because Talbott himself has just written a book, The Great Experiment, describing his own background in the pro-world government World Federalist Movement and naming a network of friends and close associates that includes former President Bill Clinton and billionaire leftist George Soros. Curiously, the book calls for expanding the authority of the U.N. but completely ignores the role of Soviet spy Alger Hiss, himself a top State Department official, in founding the United Nations.

The purpose of Talbott’s book is to promote “global governance,” a euphemism for world government. It is defined in the subtitle as “The Quest for a Global Nation.”

Interestingly, one of Talbott’s closest friends in the U.S. Senate, Republican Richard Lugar of Indiana, has emerged as a foreign policy adviser to leading Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. In 2005, Lugar and Obama made a visit to Russia to promote the scandal-ridden “Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (CTR),” also known as the Nunn-Lugar program for its original Senate sponsors. The CTR has poured about $6 billion into the former Soviet Union in foreign aid, supposedly for the purpose of preventing nuclear proliferation.

“After actively promoting Nunn-Lugar while at Time [magazine], Talbott was put in charge of the [CTR] program when named by Clinton as ambassador at large to Russia and the newly independent states in February 1993,” notes journalist Ken Timmerman, in a report headlined, “Strobe Talbott: Russia’s Man in Washington.”

Although Talbott has been identified in press accounts as a current adviser to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, he showed up to hear Senator Barack Obama deliver a foreign policy address in 2005 to the Council on Foreign Relations and declared, “It was very impressive.” A story about the speech carried by MSNBC and published on Obama’s Senate website noted that Lugar was “helping” Obama in the foreign policy field, that Obama and Lugar “have formed a political joint venture and mutual admiration society,” and that they had traveled to Russia together. The trip to Russia was designed to ensure Obama’s support for maintaining and even expanding the foreign aid for Russia through the CTR program.

Although CTR supporters claim it can be effective in keeping nuclear weapons or materials out of the hands of terrorists, various reports from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reveal that funds have been used mainly to destroy obsolete weapons that Moscow was going to replace with high-tech arms. The International Proliferation Prevention Program, which has evolved from the CTR, was recently exposed by the GAO as a jobs program for Russian scientists, more than half of which may not have any weapons-related experience.

Nevertheless, Obama said that “few people” understand Russia better than Lugar, a “rock star” on the world stage. Lugar, in turn, calls Strobe Talbott a “good friend” and “source of sound counsel” who “continues to provide outstanding national and international leadership.” Comrade J is about a Russian master spy, Sergei Tretyakov, who defected to the United States because he was disgusted with the Russian/Soviet system and wanted to start a new and better life with his family in America. His allegations about Talbott have been ignored by most of the media.

Tretyakov is described as the highest ranking Russian intelligence official ever to defect while stationed in the U.S. and handled all Russian intelligence operations against the U.S. He served under cover from 1995-2000 at Russia’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations but was secretly working for the FBI for at least three years.

Talbott has been and continues to be a major foreign policy thinker. Back in 2000, when he was named head of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, he was described as “a key architect of U.S. foreign policy” during the Clinton years. Talbott now serves as president of the liberal think tank, the Brookings Institution, in Washington, D.C., where he gets paid over $400,000 a year, leads a staff of 277 and presides over an endowment of over $200 million.

Talbott denies Tretyakov’s charges, calling them “erroneous and/or misleading,” and his denials are featured on page 184 of the book. He says that he always promoted U.S. foreign policy goals and that the close relationship that he had with a top Russian official by the name of Georgi Mamedov did not involve any manipulation or deception. This is not the first time that Talbott has come under scrutiny for his alleged contacts with agents of a foreign intelligence service. In 1994, when he was being considered for his State Department post in the Clinton Administration, he was grilled by Senator Jesse Helms, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, about his relationship with Victor Louis, a Soviet “journalist” who was actually a Soviet KGB intelligence agent. Talbott had been a young correspondent for Time magazine in Moscow.

As reported by Herbert Romerstein in Human Events newspaper, Talbott admitted knowing Louis from 1969 until his death in 1992 but that he was not aware of his “organizational affiliations.” Pressed further, Talbott acknowledged that he was aware of assertions or speculation to that effect about Louis. Helms then confronted Talbott with a 1986 State Department publication revealing that Louis had been identified as a KGB agent by KGB defectors and had been used by the Soviets to spread disinformation. Talbott said he still didn’t know for sure that Louis was a KGB agent. Romerstein’s Human Events article accused Talbott of writing articles following the Soviet line.

However, Talbott had powerful friends, including Senator and fellow Rhodes Scholar Richard Lugar, who supported his nomination.

Romerstein, a retired government expert on anti-American and communist propaganda activities, said the Earley book is valuable because it documents that the Russian intelligence service picked up where the KGB left off, and that operations against the U.S. continued after the end of the Cold War.

But he said the information about Talbott needs further explanation from Talbott himself. “Talbott really has to explain more than he did to Pete Earley what his relationship was to Mamedov, and he should tell us about his relationship with Victor Louis,” Romerstein said.
On January 4, Talbott gave a talk at the “Politics & Prose” bookstore in Washington, D.C., where he explained in precise detail what he means by “global governance.” He said that it “allows for a multiplicity of governments [or] nation states in the world but at the same time depends increasingly on an international system made up of up treaties, international law, institutions, and various arrangements whereby nations in effect pool their national authority in order to deal with certain problems that they cannot deal with all by themselves and they can’t deal with in small numbers.”

Talbott added, “That is the big idea that the book attempts to describe and trace. And it’s not just a utopian dream. Global governance is a reality. We have it today.”

In the future, Talbott says the U.N. will need to be “incorporated into an increasingly variegated network of structures and arrangements, some functional in focus, others geographic; some intergovernmental, others based on systematic collaboration with the private sector, civil society, and NGOs [non-governmental organizations]. Only if the larger enterprise of global governance has that kind of breadth and depth will it be able to supplement what the U.N. does well, compensate for what it does badly, and provide capabilities that it lacks.”

In 1993, when Talbott was nominated by President Clinton as Ambassador at Large and Special Adviser to the Secretary of State on the new Independent States (of the former Soviet Union), Senator John McCain took to the Senate floor to declare that, despite Talbott being a close friend and personal pick of the President’s, “I cannot in good conscience vote to confirm his appointment.”

McCain said that Talbott, as a writer for Time magazine and a commentator, had been guilty of making “mistaken observations” and suggesting “flawed policy solutions” on the matter of whether Russia “will evolve peacefully and democratically, collapse into chaos, or return to totalitarianism, be it Communist or fascist.”

McCain noted that Talbott opposed all of the Reagan initiatives, including deployment of missiles to Europe and the Strategic Defense Initiative, which had kept Europe free from Soviet control and eventually resulted in the demise of the Soviet empire. McCain said that “it would require many more hours for me to cite all the examples of mistakes and inconsistencies upon which Mr. Talbott bases his reputation as a Soviet expert.”

However, on April 2, 1993, Talbott was confirmed by the Senate to this post by a Yea-Nay Vote of 89-9. One of his leading Senate backers was Indiana Republican Senator Richard Lugar. The nine voting against Talbott were Craig (R-ID), Faircloth (R-NC), Gorton (R-WA), Helms (R-NC), Kempthorne (R-ID), Lott (R-MS), McCain (R-AZ), Smith (R-NH), and Wallop (R-WY).

On February 22, 1994, again with Lugar’s vigorous support, Talbott was confirmed by the Senate by a Yea-Nay Vote of 66-31 to the post of Deputy Secretary of State. Once again, McCain voted against him.

While critical of the George W. Bush Administration, Talbott hosted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a May 2007 meeting of the International Advisory Council of Brookings. In his book, he gives credit to Rice for “moderating the tone and substance” of policy coming from the Bush White House in the president’s second term.

Talbott’s book, The Great Experiment, not only ignores the role of Soviet spy Alger Hiss in founding the U.N. but describes the production of the U.N. Charter as a “very public American project.” He thanks George Soros and Walter Isaacson, formerly of Time but now with the Aspen Institute, for their input on his manuscript.
Talbott also gives thanks to convicted document thief Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton’s national security adviser who now advises Hillary’s presidential campaign; Soros associate Morton Halperin, formerly of the ACLU; Javier Solana of the European Union; and Bill Clinton, “for helping me better to understand several aspects of his view of the world and America’s role in it.”

A close personal friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Talbott is described in the Comrade J book as having been “a special unofficial contact” of the Russian intelligence agency, the SVR, when he was Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration. Talbott had been in charge of Russian affairs.

“Inside the SVR, that term was used only to identify a top-level intelligence source who had high social and/or political status and whose identity needed to be carefully guarded,” the book says. On the same level of interest was Fidel Castro’s brother Raul, a communist “recruited by the KGB during the Khrushchev era” who continued to work for the Russians after the Soviet collapse, the book says. He, too, was a “special unofficial contact.”

Talbott was allegedly manipulated and deceived by Russia’s then Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Georgi Mamedov, who was “secretly working” for Russian intelligence, the book alleges. The book, however, does not make the specific charge that Talbott was recruited as a Russian spy or was a conscious agent of the Russian regime.

The book cites Talbott as an “example of how a skilled intelligence agency could manipulate a situation and a diplomatic source to its advantage without the target realizing he was being used for intelligence-gathering purposes.” It says Mamedov was “instructed” by the SVR to ask specific questions to get information about certain matters.

The book says that Talbott was so compromised by his relationship with Mamedov that the FBI asked Secretary of State Madeleine Albright not to share information with Talbott about an espionage investigation at the State Department because Mamedov might learn about it and tip off Russian intelligence. Earley says he confirmed this account but that Albright has refused to discuss the incident.

The book cites a House of Representatives report, released in September 2000, which found that the Clinton Administration and Talbott in particular had excused the actions of the Russian government and had failed to promote democracy and free enterprise there.

Earley’s book itself discusses how, during the mid 1990s, Talbott, State Department spokesman Mike McCurry, and President Clinton himself echoed Russian propaganda that justified Russian attacks on Chechnya. This “delighted the propagandists inside the SVR,” which claimed credit” for what the U.S. officials had said, the book says.

It seems that Talbott has a tendency, which continues to the present day, of whitewashing the Russian regime.

In congressional testimony just last October on U.S.-Russian relations, Talbott attacked the Bush Administration for withdrawing from the ABM treaty, urged Russian membership in the World Trade Organization, and advocated more negotiations and agreements with Russia over nuclear arms. The U.S. has “set a bad example” for the Russians in foreign affairs, Talbott said.

With all of these high-powered connections, the story about Talbott being used by the Russians seems to be a story worth reporting or commenting on. However, if the media examine the charges against Talbott, they might have to deal with other evidence and information in the book about how spies for the Soviet intelligence service manipulated the U.S. media.

The book, for instance, explains how the Soviet KGB peddled charges that deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons to Europe in the 1980s might lead to their use and a “nuclear winter” or climate crisis for the world. The book says the story was cooked up by the KGB and fed to the Western world by anti-nuclear activists such as Carl Sagan, who penned an article on the topic for the Council on Foreign Relations journal Foreign Affairs. The book notes that Sagan later appeared on the ABC television network to talk about the subject.

Tretyakov says he discovered “dozens of case studies” of the KGB using “propaganda and disinformation to influence public opinion” in the West.
A prominent journalist himself at one time, Talbott achieved notoriety for writing a July 20, 1992, Time column, “The Birth of the Global Nation,” saying that in the next century “nationhood as we know it will be obsolete,” that we will all some day become world citizens, and that wars and human rights violations in the 20th century had clinched “the case for world government.” This reflects the views of the pro-world government World Federalist movement.

“The piece made me briefly popular with foreign policy liberals and, not so briefly, a target of brickbats from the right,” he says in his book. He acknowledges that his parents were members of the World Federalist Movement (they were also “active in the internationalist wing of the Republican Party in the late forties and early fifties “) and that he had a dog growing up known as “Freddie,” which was short for World Federalists. The World Federalist Movement collaborated with Soviet front groups such as the Soviet Peace Committee during the Cold War and tried to avoid scrutiny from anti-communist congressional committees after World War II.

In one of his first major media appearances after his selection as Brookings president, on the Charlie Rose program, he was identified in promotional material as a World Federalist. But this designation doesn’t appear in the official biography on the Brookings website.

Talbott’s global left-wing vision was endorsed personally by President Clinton, who had sent a June 22, 1993, letter to the World Federalist Association (WFA) when it gave Talbott its Norman Cousins Global Governance Award. In the letter, Clinton noted that Cousins, the WFA founder, had “worked for world peace and world government” and that Talbott was a “worthy recipient” of the award. Talbott and Bill Clinton became friends when they were both Rhodes Scholars.

Hillary Clinton, who has been friends with Talbott since their days together at Yale University, gave a videotaped address to the WFA in 1999 on the occasion of the group giving former anchorman of the CBS Evening News Walter Cronkite its global governance award. She praised Cronkite’s work. For his part, Cronkite declared that “we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government” and America must “yield up some of our sovereignty.”

For Gary Shteyngart, Russia is a Dead Country

Courier International reports:

For Gary Shteyngart, Russia is a dead country

Gary Shteyngart, an American writer with Russian origins, has just published a satirical novel about Russia, Absurdistan. Interviewed buy Antonio Lozano, he takes a pessimistic view of his country. “Today Russia is nothing but a gigantic natural gas and oil supplier. It is a dead country. It has a very low birth rate for one thing. And yet in terms of culture, it has the best prose of the19th century, without which contemporary literature cannot be understood. … When Absurdistan was published in Russia, I was called a traitor to the nation, on the Untied States’ pay-roll, but at the same time, several critics said, ‘We live in Absurdistan!’ … [Satire] has always been the best political weapon, since Jonathan Swift, and then Gogol, my reference. And it continues to be, with Vladimir Sorokin in Russia and George Saunders and others in the United States.”

Shteyngart has said: “This is a reality book, and the reality is that we are becoming Absurdistan with each passing day. Look, you have a government that spies on its own citizens, is basically an oil kleptocracy, the government serves the oil interest, just the way it does in Russia.”