Unclenching the Fist

U.S.-Russian relations in the age of Obama

Cathy Young from the April 2009 issue

(Page 2 of 3)

It could be that the conflict is more contrived than real on Russia’s end. The belief that Kremlin rhetoric about the American threat is a faux paranoia, calculated to enable bullying at home and abroad, is shared by numerous commentators inside Russia, from the Carnegie Endowment’s Lilia Shevtsova to former top-level Soviet arms negotiator Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin. Writing in the independent online journal EJ.ru in April 2008, Dvorkin pointed out the obvious: Given Russia’s nuclear potential, a military attack by NATO troops on Russia is unthinkable, no matter how many of its neighbors join the alliance. The real danger to Russia, in Dvorkin’s view, is “civilizational isolation” if the country continues to resist democratization and modernization and finds itself surrounded by neighbors integrated into the West.

Russia’s Shaky State

There are plenty of signs that Russia in the Putin era has been traveling down that path. During the last eight years, the messy and corrupt but relatively free political system of the Yeltsin era has given way to rigid top-down control by the central state (in Putin-speak, “the power vertical”). The political party United Russia, now headed by Putin, has been firmly established as the country’s ruling force. Political opposition has been marginalized and local governments brought under Moscow’s heel. Television programming, the primary source of news for the vast majority of Russians, is under rigid censorship, and most radio broadcasting and print outlets have been brought under government control as well.

Under the guise of restoring national pride, the Putin regime has pandered to the worst instincts of the Russian public, cultivating a collective mind-set that includes a colossal yet fragile ego, a siege mentality saturated with paranoia, hatred, and mistrust of anyone labeled as the enemy, and the thuggish conviction that being respected equals being feared.

By the end of 2008, it was clear that the formal transfer of power from a term-limited President Putin to new President Medvedev had not brought about even a cosmetic liberalization. Medvedev’s nod to democratization in his November parliament speech consisted mainly of a laughable proposal to build up the multiparty system by allowing parties that get 3 percent to 5 percent of the vote in elections to have one or two seats in the legislature. Control over television was not lessened. A new opposition party led by former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, People for Democracy and Justice, was denied registration, despite having more than the required 50,000 members on its roster, because the registration commission found improprieties in 37 signatures. “Marches of dissent” were still violently suppressed. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the ex-CEO of the Yukos oil company imprisoned in 2003 after he began financing the opposition, was still denied early release.

While the government made some cautious overtures to liberals—including the creation of a Kremlin-funded, loyalist “liberal” party called The Right Cause and the appointment of opposition leader Nikita Belykh to a governorship —these moves were widely seen as attempts to co-opt what remained of the opposition. (The creators of The Right Cause cannibalized and disbanded one of the country’s two remaining legal liberal opposition parties, the Union of Rightist Forces.)

Other steps by the Kremlin could signal a further slide toward dictatorship. In his November address, Medvedev proposed increasing the presidential term from four years to six; a constitutional amendment to that effect was speedily enacted and ratified by the end of the year, sparking speculation that the change would pave the way for new elections and Putin’s return to the presidency. A few days into 2009, Medvedev signed a law that abolished the right to a jury trial for defendants accused of terrorism, treason, insurrection, or fomenting civil unrest—despite opposition from the usually docile Public Chamber, a monitoring body meant to function as a collective ombudsman.

The gutting of jury trials is particularly alarming in conjunction with another government-backed bill that would broaden the definition of treason. While current law defines treason as aiding and abetting an external threat, the new version would include aiding “a foreign state, a foreign or international organization, or representatives thereof ” in any activity that endangers “the security of the Russian Federation, including its constitutional system, its sovereignty, its territorial integrity and statehood.” The potential for criminalizing dissent is obvious: With its vague formula, the law could be easily directed against an opposition activist or publication working with, say, Amnesty International.

But could the situation change if, as quite a few Russian and Western pundits had predicted during the transition, the Putin-Medvedev two-czar show turns into a power struggle? Tea leaf readers have been hard at work looking for signs of a split, or of Medvedev growing a spine and a power base of his own. By and large, such claims have been long on speculation and short on evidence.

Curiously, the proposed new treason law gave rise to one of the first actual signs of a possible fissure in the “tandem.” On January 14, the independent daily Nezavisimiaya Gazeta reported that the bill had been shelved by the committee on legislation in the Duma, the lower house of Russia’s parliament, and sent back to the government for revision, at the insistence of members known to be close to Medvedev. “Duma sources” told the paper that Medvedev could not sign the bill without compromising his “liberal” image but could not openly veto it because it had Putin’s backing; the only way out was to have it quietly amended. While this explanation indicates that Putin’s power remains unchallenged, the leaking of such information to a major newspaper—presumably by pro-Medvedev legislators—could also be an effective way to embarrass Putin.

Apart from the possibility of conflict at the top, the past year has starkly revealed the weaknesses of Russia’s neo-autocracy. Even the successful war in Georgia, widely touted as a victory over the Americans, exposed serious problems in the Russian army, including a lack of coordination, a shortage of modern weapons, and breakdown-prone armored vehicles. Russia’s military faces other problems as well. The Iskander missiles Medvedev has brandished as Moscow’s response to U.S. radar bases in Eastern Europe have the problem of not yet existing; their production is scheduled to start in 2010, but according to a November 18 report by the RIA Novosti news service, some military experts doubt this schedule can be met “due to a lack of production facilities and a workforce shortage.”

The war in Georgia and its aftermath—Russian recognition of the independence of the breakaway Georgian provinces, South Ossetia and Abkhazia—also highlighted Moscow’s international isolation: As Ilya Milshtein, a columnist for the liberal website Grani.ru, put it in a scathing year-in-review column, Russia was reduced to “chasing its friends all over the world,” pleading for recognition of the two states. So far, only Nicaragua has answered the plea; even Russia’s closest allies among the former Soviet republics, such as Belarus, dragged their feet, despite being bribed with loans and cheap gas. In another Pyrrhic turn, the victory in Georgia saddled Russia with two new impoverished and violence-prone colonies. (Quick wits dubbed the Abkhazia- South Ossetia-Russia alliance “AbOsRus,” which sounds exactly like a Russian vulgarism meaning, more or less, “in deep shit.”)

After much defiant posturing, Russia proved eager to patch up relations with at least the European West. In his speech at the World Policy Forum in Evian, France on October 8, Medvedev argued that the U.S. had forfeited its global leadership role and that Europe and Russia should join in a new security pact. The already slim chances of the E.U. being receptive to such overtures were reduced to zero by Obama’s election—and by the fact that in 2009 the chairmanship of the E.U. is held first by the Czech Republic and then by Sweden, both countries with a hard-line attitude toward Russia. The January gas price dispute between Russia and Ukraine, which caused fuel to be cut off to many European countries during a cold snap—and which, no matter how one apportions the blame, was indubitably a result of Putin’s policy of using natural gas for political leverage—is likely to further chill Russia’s relations with Europe.

Then, of course, there is the ongoing international economic crisis, which hit Russia especially hard, on the heels of pre-existing economic problems that often had political roots. The first big Russian stock market drop took place in late July, after an offhand comment by Putin sparked fears that a major steel company, Mechel, was being targeted for a Yukos-style Kremlin vendetta. At a cabinet meeting, Putin slammed Mechel for exporting raw materials at below-market prices and possibly underpaying taxes, and noted that company owner Igor Zyuzin had been invited to the meeting but had claimed to be ill. He then added, in his characteristic Tony Soprano–style lingo, that Zyuzin “ought to get better soon, or we’ll have to send him a doctor and clean up these problems.”

By the end of the year, the Russian market had lost 70 percent of its capitalization. Industrial output dropped sharply; the ruble reeled, and the extent to which Russia’s relative prosperity of the 2000s had rested on an oil barrel became painfully evident. Writing in Moscow News on December 24, Anders Aslund, a senior fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, argued that the Putin government had squandered the opportunities offered by high oil prices by building up huge and inert state-controlled companies instead of modernizing the infrastructure and eradicating corruption.

Comments

TofuSushi|3.13.09 @ 10:55AM|#

I hop president Obama learns some good lessons from them. He is on the right track, but just not going far enough.

BDB|3.13.09 @ 11:00AM|#

Putin may not last much longer if oil prices don't rise again.

|3.13.09 @ 11:05AM|#

Not current with internal Russian politics, BDB. Who is in a position to oust Putin?

BDB|3.13.09 @ 11:08AM|#

"Not current with internal Russian politics, BDB. Who is in a position to oust Putin?"

I have no clue but for the first time since he's been in power there are actual widespread protests against him.

The Russian people basically made a deal with the devil where they would put up with his authoritarian state if he would deliver economic growth. The latter part of that bargain is starting to slip.

I'm guessing a Soviet-style ousting where he goes on vacation then a group of higher-ups in the Russian government announce he "retired" for "health reasons".

Warty|3.13.09 @ 11:09AM|#

Damn, look at that hunk of man. The Russians' czar is way sexier than any of ours.

Spoonman|3.13.09 @ 11:22AM|#

The Russian people basically made a deal with the devil where they would put up with his authoritarian state if he would deliver economic growth. The latter part of that bargain is starting to slip.

The Chinese did too.
Now their economy slows.
Friday haikus live.

|3.13.09 @ 11:25AM|#

Vladimir Putin
Strongman of the new Russia
Has a hot girlfriend.

-jcr

ed|3.13.09 @ 11:25AM|#

(sigh)
Why won't our dictators pose with deadly weapons.
I don't mind confessing that if I saw a picture of Nancy Pelosi holding a Kalashnikov,
I'd get a woody.

Spoonman|3.13.09 @ 11:28AM|#

Getting a woody while thinking about Nancy Pelosi is a grave assault on the honor of woodies everywhere.

|3.13.09 @ 11:28AM|#

if I saw a picture of Nancy Pelosi holding a Kalashnikov,
I'd get a woody.

Ed,

I'm telling you this as a friend: seek professional help. There's a fine line between a fetish and a pathology, and that one's way off the curve.

-jcr

andy sullivan|3.13.09 @ 11:39AM|#

vladimir putin
has pecs like hot slavic god
him and barack.......uuunnnhh!

|3.13.09 @ 11:40AM|#

Am I the only one that can see Putin in vinyl, with a ball gag?

TofuSushi|3.13.09 @ 11:51AM|#

Thank you one and all.

I am now having a fantasy of Nancy Pelosi and Betty White calling me kitten after serving them breakfast.

BakedPenguin|3.13.09 @ 11:55AM|#

The Russians really pissed off a lot of europe with the natural gas fiasco. Even in countries like Bulgaria and Serbia, which are traditionally very pro-Russian.

Anyway, back to the homoerotic haiku.

Xeones|3.13.09 @ 12:04PM|#

brotherben, that says
More about you than Putin
Shorter answer: yes

ed|3.13.09 @ 12:08PM|#

I am now having a fantasy of Nancy Pelosi and Betty White calling me kitten after serving them breakfast.

Are they holding assault weapons?

TofuSushi|3.13.09 @ 12:09PM|#

ed,

No, my breakfast nook is a gun free zone.

ed|3.13.09 @ 12:12PM|#

Getting a woody while thinking about Nancy Pelosi is a grave assault

Come on. Tell me you haven't dreamt of Ole Nance in a pink teddy.

|3.13.09 @ 12:13PM|#

Reason commenters
Murder haiku like Putin
Murders dissenters

ed|3.13.09 @ 12:30PM|#

Nancy Pelosi
Speaker with low-hanging tits
Bent over, shoe fits

T|3.13.09 @ 12:30PM|#

Putin wears earmuffs
In a fashion new to me
His bald head must chafe

D.R.M.|3.13.09 @ 12:35PM|#

I see Ms. Young adopts the Russian narrative on Georgia, where Russia was reacting to the Georgians.

As a matter of logistics, the speed of the Russian "reaction" to Georgia indicates the Russians had already put an armored assault on Georgia into motion before the first Georgians entered South Ossetia. Further, this invasion would have been abundantly clear both on satellite and to human intelligence assets in Russia.

Which makes the whole thing abundantly clear. Georgia would certainly have known Russia was invading. Its military actions were clearly focused on seizing the passes through the Caucasus before Russia could send its armor through, and neutralizing Russian "peacekeepers" already in S. Ossetia. Georgia failed to achieve those objectives in its available reaction time, and Russia's invasion went through successfully.

If the Russian invasion hadn't been started before the Georgians entered South Ossetia, the Russian armored units would have taken at least 24 more hours to reach the passes, which would have been consolidated by the Georgians by then.

In terms of propaganda, of course, it would have been a lot easier to show the Russians were the aggressors if Georgia hadn't tried to stop the Russians from invading. Of course, Saakashvili would deserve all the abuse he's gotten if he'd not even tried to stop a Russian invasion in exchange for a mere propaganda advantage.

|3.13.09 @ 12:35PM|#

Hillary Clinton
All who saw her camel toe
Were awed by its size

|3.13.09 @ 1:05PM|#

I knew sage sounded familiar...

sage | March 16, 2007, 4:10pm | #
Straight? Try Hillary
All who saw her camel toe
Were awed by its size

VM | March 16, 2007, 4:11pm | #
Noam the blow up doll
for humping and fond'ling libs
heather has two moms.

JimmyDaGeek | March 16, 2007, 4:12pm | #
You all perturb me
With your corn syrup and Noam.
I pass on offer.

crimethink | March 16, 2007, 4:12pm | #
Haikus about old
women's private parts not right
They sicken reader

|3.13.09 @ 1:13PM|#

OK, I repeat
Way too much time on your hands
To find stuff that old

|3.13.09 @ 1:16PM|#

Vision of Hil-Dogg
Seered into long-term mem'ry
google is my friend

Mad Ivan|3.13.09 @ 1:20PM|#

Time to de-troll again...

D.R.M. -- It's nice to see Ms. Young adapting a more reasonablу position than previous hysterical screams about Russians "invading" Georgia.

Of course had they actually invaded Georgia, Saakishvili would not still be its president... But then arguing with anyone who still believes the "Russia invaded" canard is probably useless...

|3.13.09 @ 1:24PM|#

I agree, crimethink
Google is a handy tool
Don't try image search

economist|3.13.09 @ 1:30PM|#

"I don't mind confessing that if I saw a picture of Nancy Pelosi holding a Kalashnikov,
I'd get a woody."

*backs slowly away*

|3.13.09 @ 2:00PM|#

Of course had they actually invaded Georgia, Saakishvili would not still be its president...

Funny, the British invaded the US in 1812, but Madison remained president.

Yackov|3.13.09 @ 2:07PM|#

"Am I the only one that can see Putin in vinyl, with a ball gag?"

In Soviet Union, ball gags you!

Andy\'s Dick|3.13.09 @ 2:09PM|#

"No, my breakfast nook is a gun free zone."

Then your breakfast guests aren't really that safe, are they?

Teddy Kennedy|3.13.09 @ 2:10PM|#

"Come on. Tell me you haven't dreamt of Ole Nance in a pink teddy."

She has never pegged me. She has never been more than a friend.

|3.13.09 @ 2:44PM|#

Tell me you haven't dreamt of Ole Nance in a pink teddy.

for sure
A leather teddy, a pink leather teddy
gag me with a spoon

Mad Ivan|3.13.09 @ 4:04PM|#

Crimethink -- there's a bit of a difference in relative strength here... and Brits did burn Washington down, while Russians didn't even march on Tbilisi.

|3.13.09 @ 4:19PM|#

the point is, Ivan, that any armed incursion inside the territory of another country without the permission of that country's government is an invasion. Removing the leader of that country (your previous criterion), burning down the capital (your current criterion) are not necessary.

|3.13.09 @ 4:43PM|#

I think that's a Makarov in Putin's paw.
Classic symbol of the Postwar Soviet military.
Not accidental, I assume.

|3.13.09 @ 4:44PM|#

Perhaps best thread evah...

BTW, anyone know why VP's wearing his hearing protectors upside down? Not that it matters, since they work either way but it looks dorky to use the headband as a chin-strap, and it's not like he's going to muss his hair.

guy in the back row|3.13.09 @ 5:09PM|#

Am I the only one that can see Putin in vinyl, with a ball gag?

I'm sure his Mistress sees him that way two to four times a month.

Mad Ivan|3.13.09 @ 5:19PM|#

Unless, of course, that other country being "incursed" started by shelling your peacekeepers in a disputed territory. Then it is self-defense.

Whether Saakishvili was tricked into starting it, and by whom, is another matter.

ed|3.13.09 @ 5:20PM|#

Don't try image search

That search is my friend.
Vanna White. Many poses.
She's embarrassed. Heh.

ed|3.13.09 @ 6:24PM|#

Yackov | March 13, 2009, 2:07pm | #

"Am I the only one that can see Putin in vinyl, with a ball gag?"

Substitute Putin for Pelosi and no, you are not alone.
Is that so wrong?

ed|3.14.09 @ 3:01PM|#

I guess it was. Way wrong.

nick|3.14.09 @ 3:06PM|#

This article is by now a rather aged and redundant piece of anti-Russian media noise. Its a brave new world out there, and the good old "west-nice, Putin-bad" mantra makes me sigh. Nato expanded because Russia was supposed to join... come on! It seems just like the army generals always prepare to fight yesterdays war, most pundits prefer to drone on the old propaganda instead of daring to peak whats around the corner. How to do it? Simple. The basic rules are always the same. Geopolitics and international power struggles generate political will and channel the media into predictable populist formats. The soft power is exercised through think tanks, other institutions and us common folk chatting
and trying to convince each other. I dont think this kind of thinking is cynical. Pretending like those power mechanisms dont exist and writing articles such as above, thats cynical for sure.

LarryA|3.14.09 @ 5:33PM|#

I don't mind confessing that if I saw a picture of Nancy Pelosi holding a Kalashnikov,
I'd get a woody.

I don't remember one of Pelosi, but how about Dianne Feinstein?