Friday, September 23, 2016

Russia Blogs Review

» Преподаватель Бауманки приговорен к 7 годам колонии по делу о госизмене
23/09/16 11:22 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Каспаров.Ru. Преподаватель МГТУ имени Баумана Владимир Лапыгин приговорен к 7 годам колонии строгого режима по делу о государственной измене.
» Как Москва издевается над американцами - Обозреватель
23/09/16 11:21 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Андрей Пионтковский - Google News. Обозреватель Как Москва издевается над американцами Обозреватель Сцена в Совете Безопасности между американским Госсекретарем Джоном Керри и российским министром иностран...
» Media: Suspected Russian Cyberattack Targets German Parties
23/09/16 11:19 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Voice of America. German security officials say a cyberattack believed to be directed by Russia targeted journalists and lawmakers in recent weeks. The domestic intelligence agency BfV says the German Parl...
» Russia may not be so united behind United Russia
23/09/16 11:17 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Russia Direct. Russia may not be so united behind United Russia According to initial estimates, the party of power – United Russia – performed even better than expected in parliamentary elections. But how ...
» Why a plan for future Russia-EU relations is necessary
23/09/16 11:15 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Russia Direct. Why a plan for future Russia-EU relations is necessary Relations between Moscow and Brussels since the beginning of the Ukraine conflict leave much to be desired. What is vital now is to rec...
» What are the major security threats for Russia in Eurasia?
23/09/16 11:14 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Russia Direct. What are the major security threats for Russia in Eurasia? With the changing geopolitical reality, the nature of the security threats facing Russia is changing as well. The majority of them ...
» Russian MP: 'We will buy Bulgaria, we already bought half of the coast'
23/09/16 11:13 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Russia News. A statement by a Russian parliamentarian has sent shockwaves through Bulgaria, as the country begins to realise that the many Russians who bought real estate in the country may sooner or later...
» NEWSWATCH: “Why the Kremlin’s big win in Russian elections may not be a victory” – Christian Science Monitor/Fred Weir
23/09/16 11:13 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Johnson's Russia List. … United Russia … may have won a crushing victory in Sunday’s parliamentary elections … undoubtedly … a huge boost for … Putin. But the most c...
» A fresh start for a new version of the KGB
23/09/16 11:12 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Russia Direct. A fresh start for a new version of the KGB The centralization of the nation’s security forces within a new Ministry of State Security is either a pragmatic management move – or a precursor t...
» RA’s Daily Russia News Blast – Sept 21, 2016
23/09/16 11:11 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Robert Amsterdam. TODAY : CIA head says Putin will run in 2018, increase stronghold on society; founder of art collective Voina arrested in Czech Republic; Czechoslovakia; NATO rejects Russian air safety p...
» Top diplomats of Russia and UK discuss Syria and bilateral ties
23/09/16 11:10 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Russia Beyond The Headlines. Sergey Lavrov and Boris Johnson meet in New York
» Interview with Sky NEWS
23/09/16 11:10 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Mikhail Khodorkovsky talks with Sky NEWS about his support of candidates in the State Duma elections, and gives his assessment of Russia under Putin, and what might come after http://...
» The reasons behind the Obama non-recovery
23/09/16 11:01 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from – Latest Content. The Obama administration and some economists argue that the recovery since the Great Recession ended in 2009 has been unusually weak because of the recession’s severity and the fact that ...
» PH, Russia explore possible military deals
23/09/16 11:01 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Russia News. The Department of Foreign Affairs on Wednesday said officials from the Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation briefed the Philippine Embassy in Moscow on the different aspe...
» NEWSLINK Newsweek.com: “UKRAINE REPORTS RUSSIA IS PRACTICING ITS READINESS FOR NUCLEAR CONFLICT”
23/09/16 11:00 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Johnson's Russia List. Ukraine’s military intelligence claims Russia’s nuclear forces have begun training, simulating the conditions of a large-scale conflict. Kiev’s military intelli...
» The new US-Russia ceasefire in Syria is unofficially over
23/09/16 11:00 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Russia Direct. The new US-Russia ceasefire in Syria is unofficially over A recent U.S. airstrike on positions of Syrian government forces was either a mistake – or a deliberate attempt to end the ceasefire...
» BRICS nations seek - firm' legal framework against terror
23/09/16 10:59 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Russia News. New York, Sep 21 : Strongly condemning recent terror attacks, including in India, the BRICS member nations sought a "firm" legal framework under the UN for concerted efforts to fight terrorism...
» Medvedev Warns Russia of Economic Reform’s ‘High Social Cost’
23/09/16 10:57 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Johnson's Russia List. (Moscow Times – themoscowtimes.com – September 22, 2016) Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has warned that the reforms needed to save Russia’s economy will...
» [Medvedev:] New dynamics in Russia’s socioeconomic development
23/09/16 10:57 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Johnson's Russia List. (Government.ru/Rossiyskaya Gazeta – September 22, 2016) Article by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev for the academic journal Voprosy Ekonomiki (Economic Issues) vopreco.ru/ru...
» Lost Trillions Haunt Russian Budget Keeper in Cheap-Oil Era
23/09/16 10:57 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Johnson's Russia List. (Bloomberg – bloomberg.com – Evgenia Pismennaya, Anna Andrianova – September 21, 2016) To get a snapshot of a budget in crisis, visit any of the 10,700 abandone...
» The results of the Duma elections send the wrong signal to the Kremlin
23/09/16 10:56 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Russia Direct. The results of the Duma elections send the wrong signal to the Kremlin What does the victory of the United Russia ruling party in the parliamentary elections mean for Russia’s political futu...
» Russian election chiefs to investigate Reuters findings of irregularities
23/09/16 10:55 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Russia News. Russia's national election authority said it would look into evidence found by Reuters of inflated turnout figures and people voting more than once at three polling stations in two regions dur...
» Senate and House Dems accuse Russia of using hackers to influence the election
23/09/16 10:55 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Russia News. Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee Sen. Dianne Feinstein arrives at a briefing on July 31, 2014 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC The top Democrats on the U.S. Senate and House of Repre...
» The Middle East's time of troubles: The view from Russia
23/09/16 10:54 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Russia Direct. The Middle East's time of troubles: The view from Russia A new report from a group of leading Middle East experts in Russia lays out the primary challenges facing the troubled region A ...
» Russia’s security services are trying to reform their way out of the shadows
23/09/16 10:52 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from oD Russia. Sweeping reforms to Russia’s power ministries show that the FSB has the country’s security monopoly in its sights.   Sudden and sweeping reforms to Russia’s security ministries don’t signal...
» Kalashnikov Corporation signs contracts with 15 new countries over 2 years
23/09/16 10:51 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Russia Beyond The Headlines. The Kalashnikov Corporation’s book of foreign orders exceeds $200 mln
» Аналитик намекнул, что Путину грозит резкое ухудшение здоровья - Главред
23/09/16 10:48 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from здоровье путина - Google News. Главред Аналитик намекнул, что Путину грозит резкое ухудшение здоровья Главред "Причиной для оглашения досрочных президентских выборов может стать резкое ухудшение состо...
» U.S., Russia lose illusions, recognize limits in Syria fight - UPI.com
23/09/16 10:47 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from US - Russia relations - Google News. UPI.com U.S. , Russia lose illusions, recognize limits in Syria fight UPI.com And now, after the Russian -Turkish and Russian - U.S. compromises, as well as the expecte...
» В Киеве заявили, что НАТО увеличит помощь Украине - РИА Новости
23/09/16 10:47 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from В мире – Новости Google. РИА Новости В Киеве заявили, что НАТО увеличит помощь Украине РИА Новости КИЕВ, 23 сен — РИА Новости. НАТО заверила Украину в том, что будет наращивать помощь для усиления оборонос...
» Robb: Obama's United Nations speech proves why his foreign policy has failed - azcentral.com
23/09/16 10:47 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinks
mikenova shared this story from Russia international behavior - Google News. azcentral.com Robb: Obama's United Nations speech proves why his foreign policy has failed azcentral.com As Obama put it in his U.N. speech: “We are all stakeho...

Преподаватель Бауманки приговорен к 7 годам колонии по делу о госизмене

1 Share
Преподаватель МГТУ имени Баумана Владимир Лапыгин приговорен к 7 годам колонии строгого режима по делу о государственной измене.

Как Москва издевается над американцами - Обозреватель

1 Share

Обозреватель

Как Москва издевается над американцами
Обозреватель
Сцена в Совете Безопасности между американским Госсекретарем Джоном Керри и российским министром иностранных дел Лавровым-Рибентропом, как я его называю, людям старшего поколения напоминает историческую классическую сцену во время Карибского кризиса.

and more »

Media: Suspected Russian Cyberattack Targets German Parties

1 Share
German security officials say a cyberattack believed to be directed by Russia targeted journalists and lawmakers in recent weeks. The domestic intelligence agency BfV says the German Parliament, at least two political parties and an unidentified media company were targeted in a sophisticated email phishing attempt between August 15 and September 15. A warning bulletin provided Friday to The Associated Press says the attacker used a fake email address purportedly belonging to an individual at the NATO military alliance, of which Germany is a member. The BfV said its cyberdefense unit determined that clicking an attachment in the email could result in the installation of malicious software. It attributed the attack to the hacking group APT28, noting "there are indications this campaign is directed by Russian government entities."

Russia may not be so united behind United Russia

1 Share

Russia may not be so united behind United Russia

According to initial estimates, the party of power – United Russia – performed even better than expected in parliamentary elections. But how much support does the party really have in Russia?

According to initial estimates, the party of power – United Russia – performed even better than expected in parliamentary elections. But how much support does the party really have in Russia?
 
Polling stations during the Russian election day, as seen from surveillance cameras on Sept. 18. Photo: TASS
On Sept. 18, Russians went to the polls to elect candidates for the State Duma, the lower chamber of the nation’s parliament. However, as many experts predicted, this year’s elections didn’t change the current status quo. The new parliament resembles the previous one, bringing together the same four parties – United Russia, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR), the Communist Party and A Just Russia – to govern the country.
According to preliminary results, the ruling United Russia party is winning with 51 percent of the votes, followed by the Liberal Democratic Party (15.1 percent), the Communist Party (14.58 percent), and A Just Russia party (6.4 percent). However, due to the mixed system of voting, which includes single-mandate constituencies as well as party lists, some candidates from other parties will receive seats in the new Duma.
Experts point out that many young Russians came to the polling stations this year, which is a good sign, said Yelena Shestopal, a political scientist and a professor at Lomonosov Moscow State University. However, the major flaw of the elections is the extremely low voter turnout, with less than 50 percent of eligible voters having voted at the polling station. In Moscow, the turnout was even lower: about 35 percent.
It means that Russian society has become even more apathetic, according to Russian politician and democratic activist Leonid Gozman.
“People just understand that the State Duma is not the decision-maker at all,” he told Russia Direct. “The parliament turned into a sort of circus with clowns 16-17 years ago. No matter who will be elected in the parliament, this buffoonish circus will remain. So, it makes no sense. There is also an opinion that the results will be fabricated. It doesn’t mean that I justify such apathy. I just explain it. There is no reason to vote for such people.”

Also read: "What to expect from the 2016 Russian parliamentary elections"

Gozman argues that if the turnout had been bigger, United Russia would have garnered less votes and opposition parties such as Yabloko and the People’s Freedom Party (PARNAS) would have performed a bit better.
Meanwhile, Shestopal assumes that the turnout was very low because the elections were moved up from December to September. That means that the peak of the political campaign started in summer, when many Russians were on vacation.
“The elections were supposed to take place in December, but they were conducted in September and there was not enough time for the normal political campaign to involve people in the electoral process,” she said. “In fact, people started paying attention to the campaign only during the last few weeks, when they came back from vacation.”
She agrees with Gozman that the low turnout benefits only the parliamentary parties and could affect the way people view the opposition and other political stakeholders.
Most importantly, people failed to unite and to come together. And this is a very dangerous trend in such a difficult period for the country, when it is faced with economic and international challenges, Shestopal warns.
Instead of the mobilization of the population, we see demobilization,” she told Russia Direct. “On the other hand, it [the shift of the election day from December to September] was carefully planned to bring about such a low turnout. It might be just a routine [political] calculation.”
One of the factors that also affected the electoral turnout is the bureaucratic difficulty to vote in Moscow for non-Moscow residents who lack the proper registration. Officially, about 7 million voters are registered in the capital of Russia; however, in fact, there are about 14-15 million people in Moscow. It means the votes of those residents, who don’t have the registration in Moscow, but live and work there on permanent basis, are also not taken into account.
However, some experts believe that this problem is not the key reason of the low turnout.
“The low turnout in the Russian capital doesn’t depend on those voters, who are not registered in Moscow,” Pavel Salin, the director of the Center for Political Studies at the Financial University under the Russian government, told Russia Direct. “The city brings together primarily the protest vote. People just don’t see a political force, which is worthwhile to vote for. Today all parliamentary parties look the same for many voters. So, they don’t see differences between them. That’s why they just didn’t go to the polling stations.”
Future political reforms?
Most importantly, there was not a single non-parliamentary party that managed to overcome the 3-percent threshold, which means that they won’t receive funding from the government. However, government support is what allows these parties to keep afloat and work with voters between electoral cycles, said Salin. Without government money, these parties just won’t survive until the next electoral cycle.
In such a situation, the Russian political system should be reformed, argues Gozman. According to him, the liberal and opposition parties should learn lessons from their failure and adjust to the new reality instead of complaining about the apathy of voters and the lack of broadcasting time on TV.    
“Believing that TV brainwashed people means that they [the parties] don’t respect them,” Gozman said. “Today the task for the leaders of the liberal parties is to understand what they are doing wrong, why they failed to bring together people and why they are losing ground every year. Why did they fail to come up with a clear and understandable message that would overshadow primitive propaganda?”    
Gozman argues that those leaders, who failed at the elections, should resign and give an opportunity to other, more competent and ambitious politicians, but there is no rotation among the opposition leaders, with the same politicians participating in the parliamentary elections. “The current opposition leaders are not replaced and this is wrong,” Gozman concluded.

Read the interview with Leonid Gozman: "What do the Kremlin and the Russian opposition have in common?"

He is very skeptical about the future of the Russian parliament. According to him, it doesn’t play a significant role in the decision-making process. It just fulfills the orders of Russia’s key decision-maker: the Kremlin. However, liberals, if elected, would diversify the parliament and change the situation to a certain extent.
In contrast, Salin is confident that the elections will bring some changes, which could come primarily from more independent single-mandate politicians, who received seats in the parliament.
“Today, it is important to understand how single-mandate politicians will behave in the State Duma, including those candidates from United Russia,” he said. “And we will see the first results after the presidential elections in 2018, when the authorities start implementing their new economic policy and fulfill social commitments. In such a situation, single-mandate deputies will have to respond.” 
Read the whole story
 
· · · · · · ·

Why a plan for future Russia-EU relations is necessary

1 Share

Why a plan for future Russia-EU relations is necessary

Relations between Moscow and Brussels since the beginning of the Ukraine conflict leave much to be desired. What is vital now is to recognize the “new normal” and come up with principles for future dialogue

Relations between Moscow and Brussels since the beginning of the Ukraine conflict leave much to be desired.  What is vital now is to recognize the “new normal” and come up with principles for future dialogue.
Moscow-Brussels relations since the start of the Ukraine conflict leave much to be desired. Photo: AP
Russia and the European Union have traveled a long road in their relations, from the euphoria and anticipation in 1994, when an Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation was signed, to nearly a collapse of relations today. The latest development was last week’s extension of EU sanctions on individuals and entities involved in what the EU considers Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that at the moment, any attempt to reset relations is occurring in a completely different global context. Moscow and Brussels differ fundamentally in their political rhetoric, understanding of current events, views on international law, interpretation of values and strategic thinking.
Jean Monnet, French political economist and diplomat and one of the founding fathers of the EU project, once said that nothing can be started without people, and nothing can be saved without institutions. In the summer of 2016 the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) and the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) launched a joint project that aims to examine the key features of Russia-EU relations.
The goal of this joint project is to assess which mechanisms, institutions and formats of cooperation were most and least productive and, following from this, come up with suggestions for developing further dialogue between the states. On Sept. 12th, the first-ever expert dialogue took place within this initiative.
In 2003, the main course of Russia-EU relations was set at the formation of a free trade zone, an open integrated market between Russia and the EU based on common rules and regulations. Cooperation in this format meant bringing countries’ regulation systems to one common standard. This concept was developed further in 2005, when a “roadmap” was created for the further development of EU-Russian trade relations.
In the period of cooperation between Russia and the EU in the “roadmap” phase there was a clear understanding on both sides that this cooperation would lead to the emergence of four freedoms – the free movement of goods, services, capital and labor.
According to both EU and Russian experts, the EU never took serious steps to implement this plan. However, special relations had formed under the terms of “four spaces” between Russia and the EU and NATO-Russia Council. Yet, cooperation on this level was not enough to prevent the crisis in which Russia and the EU have found themselves today.

Recommended: "Russia-EU economic relations: Assessing two years of sanctions"

Relations between Moscow and Brussels since the beginning of the Ukraine conflict leave much to be desired. It is clear that a return to “business as usual” dialogue is quite unlikely.  What is vital now is to come up with a “new normal” principle for further dialogue, though it’s yet unknown on what basis it might be based on.
The main difficulty today is that neither side has a coherent understanding of its own political goals. This, in turn, leads to misunderstanding of the goals for mutually beneficial cooperation.
Experts in Russia have more than once suggested shifting the discussion to the level of cooperationbetween the EU and the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). But this proposal requires further development.
The first step towards such collaboration could start with the beginning of official dialogue between the European Commission and the Eurasian Economic Commission and a formulation of a list of topics that are of interest to both groups. The signing of official documents would constitute another step. According to Russian experts, signing a trade agreement with the EEU would be beneficial for the European Union as it would give EU producers access to a new important export market.
However, many European experts find the idea of the Eurasian Economic Union itself quite doubtful. They have questions about the economic interests and integration goals of this project. Many experts see the Eurasian Economic Union as simply an attempt to recreate the Soviet Union.
At the political level, the rhetoric seems to be softer. However, despite the fact that in the EU Global Strategy, the Union promises to support regional integration process and expresses its readiness to cooperate with regional integration projects, the EEU is not listed among such projects.
At the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in June 2016, a proposal was made to create a great Eurasian partnership with China’s participation. It was also emphasized that such a project would also be open to the EU, as a key trading partner for Russia. For now, such an idea of an EU-Russia-China partnership provokes more questions than answers, mostly because the participation of China would completely shift the balance of power in the group.
The five principles for future Russia-EU cooperation formulated by Federica Mogherini, the current high representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, indicate that one can only expect progress to occur on issues where the interests of Moscow and Brussels coincide.
Such statements and documents do not shed light on the goals of cooperation, but rather, create certain frameworks for further dialogue. What is supposed to fill these frameworks remains unclear and completely depends on the actions of policymakers, diplomats and experts.
Russia and the EU will have to agree on a common vision and goals for their relations. Dialogue on a political level, together with an understanding of common objectives for cooperation, are the most important conditions for forming institutions and mechanisms that could guarantee the achievement of these goals.
One thing is clear: cooperation is the most rational course of action for Russia and the EU. Common action may be necessary even on questions where the EU and Russia disagree, as that can give an impulse to improvement in the future. Under the current political atmosphere, many ideas and proposals currently seem unrealistic. But after some time passes, the situation may change, and it makes sense to establish a plan of action for the future now.
The opinion of the author may not necessarily reflect the position of Russia Direct or its staff.
Read the whole story
 
· · · · · ·

What are the major security threats for Russia in Eurasia?

1 Share

What are the major security threats for Russia in Eurasia?

With the changing geopolitical reality, the nature of the security threats facing Russia is changing as well. The majority of them are now coming from Eurasia rather than the West

With the changing geopolitical reality, the nature of the security threats facing Russia is changing as well. The majority of them are now coming from Eurasia rather than the West.
Women fighters of the Kurdistan Workers' Party PKK on the front line in the Makhmur area near Mosul in Iraq on 08 October 2014. Photo: Eddie Gerald/laif
The current system of international relations and the world order in general is undergoing a significant transformation. The core of the new system is shifting from the West to Eurasia, thus making Russia and China the biggest and most influential actors. It is quite clear that the West will resist any attempt by Russia or China to exploit this change to their benefit and will pursue its interests defending its vision of the world order.
This creates numerous security challenges for Russia. Being the biggest state in Eurasia, Russia is affected the most by any changes and instability around it. Thus, Moscow should have a clear understanding of threats emanating from the changing geopolitical reality.
On Sept. 16-17, the Center for Military-Political Analysis and Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO-University) held a conference dedicated to the “Long-Term Forecast of International Relations in Russia’s National Security Interests.” It gathered leading experts and state officials to discuss new challenges and threats that Russia faces in the changing geopolitical reality.
The discussion about the threats Russia is facing currently centered around several major issues: destabilization of the regions surrounding Russia (Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia), the terrorist threat emanating from instability in the Middle East and Central Asia, and the inability of Russia to elaborate effective tools to promote its initiatives aimed at stability and development (such as the Eurasian Economic Union) in its immediate neighborhood and beyond.

Recommended: "What are the main geopolitical challenges facing Russia in 2016?"

With that in mind, Russia Direct talked to the participants of the conference to learn more about the major threats to Russia’s security.
Natalia Bubnova, leading researcher, Primakov Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) of the Russian Academy of Sciences
The most urgent challenges for Russia are the resolution of the Ukrainiancrisis based on the Minsk Agreements and putting an end to the Syriancivil war. The involvement into the Syrian crisis, besides the risks of military casualties, has also, despite what has been said officially, raised terrorist risks within the country itself.
The U.S. and the West are not an existential threat to Russia, but the confrontation with them bears serious risks, both political and military. Moreover, reestablishing relations with Western countries is essential, first and foremost for Russia itself, in order to stop its economic downfall, attract investment, and get access to technologies needed for modernization.
Other challenges are no less urgent, rather more ongoing. These challenges can be divided into three baskets.

Also read: "Russia's new national security strategy has implications for the West"

The first group includes security-related challenges. Arms control should be reinvigorated. Russia should re-energize the arms control process and not let it fall victim to a new Cold War. In particular, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses real-time dangers. If we do not take care of the weapons, they will take care of us.
Combating terrorism, reducing threats of cyber-terrorism and countering space threats are also important here. It will be too late to think how to deal with them when they become real. Other security-related tasks like peacekeeping and fighting piracy also require constant attention and would benefit from Russia’s more active participation.
The second group of challenges consists of environmental challenges that include preventing climate change, green energy, Arctic exploration, ensuring a weapons-free Antarctica and dealing with the problems of the world’s oceans.
And the third group presents humanitarian challenges such as combating drug trafficking, ensuring sustainable development of the world’s poorest regions, and fighting disease (Ebola has already penetrated Asia).
The common aspect of all these challenges is that they require international cooperation. As U.S. President Barack Obama smartly commented during his latest and last UN speech, mosquitoes know no borders. The vast majority of these problems also cannot be resolved without Russia’s participation and it would be good if it took the lead in at least some of these areas.
What’s needed currently is a broader perspective. Paraphrasing what U.S. President John F. Kennedy once said, it would be worthwhile to think not only about what the world can give us, but also what we can and should give to the world. This is very much in line what has traditionally been seen in Russia’s literature and culture as Russia’s national idea – doing good, and not only for oneself, but for others as well, incorporating an ethics-based approach into politics.
As for long-term challenges, besides the above-mentioned ones, it is worth being aware of a giant neighbor looming in the east, the arc of instability in the south, and the spread of radicalism and fundamentalism worldwide, including in Russia itself.
Nikita Mendkovich, head of the Eurasia Analytical Club, expert at Russian International Affairs Council
I think that first and foremost the threat to Russia is extremism andterrorism that comes from two areas. The first one is the Middle East with its Syria-Iraq set of issues and the second is Asia and the constellation of threats coming from Afghanistan. All these issues are connected with religious extremism, as in both areas the Islamic State of Iraq and the Greater Syria (ISIS) brand is active. So, this terrorist threat is the most important one and it should be treated and resolved collectively.
The second most important threat to Russia from the security perspective, in my view, is drug-trafficking, which again comes from the Golden Triangle (This region is one of Asia's two main opium-producing areas and includes Myanmar, Laos and Thailand  Editor's note) and Afghanistan. On the one hand, certain mechanisms for the collective fight with this threat are already in place and they are much better developed than in the area of anti-terrorism because this issue is much less politicized. But on the other hand, the effectiveness of this fight is quite low.
I believe that in order to change this situation the fight with drug-trafficking should be moved closer to its sources. The main problem here is that the absolute cost of a drug increases with its move farther from its production spot, which leads to the increase of the necessary smuggling costs. This is why the rise of corruption opportunities for smugglers makes it much harder to intercept drugs as they move farther from a country of origin. Therefore, ideally it should be intercepted on the territory of a producer-country or along its borders. In the case of Afghanistan, I believe it requires deeper collective work along the borders of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
The third most important threat to Russia’s security is geopolitical confrontation, including Russia’s confrontation with the West. In part, it serves as a provocation factor to the terrorist threat because it is well-known that interference of the U.S. in the conflicts in Iraq, Libya and Syria led to the destabilization. Exactly because of that, it is not a primary threat to Russia but a circumstantial one. Besides, we are not on the brink of a global war today.
Vladimir Kolotov, professor at St. Petersburg State University
I see eight zones of instability that surround Russia as the most serious threat to Russia’s security in the short-, mid- and long-term. It is also called the system of Eurasian arcs of instability, which is basically the infrastructure for fueling new conflicts or escalating existing ones. It also includes mechanisms that influence those conflicts and project instability into Russia, China, Central Asia, the Caucasus, Eastern Europe, North Africa, etc. Thus, it makes Russia to react to the developments that directly or indirectly affect its national interests and security.
These arcs of instability include the territory between the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Indian and the Arctic oceans. The first segment of the Eurasian arc of instability is Eastern Europe, from the Barents Sea to the Black Sea, including Ukraine, the Baltics, etc. Events in those areas naturally affect Russia and no one could argue against that.
The second segment is North Africa from Tunisia to Egypt. Russia was affected here through the instability in Libya and ouster of its leader Muammar Qaddafi and last year’s terror attack against the Russian aircraft over Sinai.
The Middle East is another segment that directly affects Russia through the energy issues (oil and gas output), attempts to construct alternative oil and gas pipelines, etc.
The next segment is South Asia with its own complex of issues in Iran, Pakistan, India and China, which are connected with Southeast Asian problems. As a result, it creates a system that controls and manages foreign territorial disputes to the benefit of external powers. This includes disputes between Russia and Japan, between the two Koreas, between China and Japan, China and other states of Southeast Asia, etc.
The Arctic segment of the Eurasian arc of instability signals the new stage of the struggle for the resources. Russia’s military drills in the area and greater attention to the Arctic demonstrate the seriousness of such an approach.
And there are two more segments that are currently in the works. It is the Caucasus region with theNagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan (luckily, the recent escalation was pacified) and Georgia, which soon might become a new instability point.
And the last segment of the Eurasian arc of instability is Central Asia. The ambitious Chinese project of the New Silk Road, which poses a big challenge to the U.S. and Western economic dominance, passes through the states of Central Asia. This is why the attempts to undermine it there have already been made. This Central Asian segment of the Eurasian arc of instability covers the areas through which the Chinese project of the New Silk Road plan to go. Naturally it affects Russia as it has common borders with Central Asian states.
So, these are the general security issues that directly or indirectly affect Russia. Being aware of these threats, Russia needs to be able to defend itself from the destabilizing impacts of the Eurasian arcs of instability. So far we do not have any system of defense against it. As Russia’s current foreign policy is reactive rather than proactive we suffer from fighting with the consequences rather than with reasons of the issues and threats.
Read the whole story
 
· · · · · · · · ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 2

Russian MP: 'We will buy Bulgaria, we already bought half of the coast'

1 Share
A statement by a Russian parliamentarian has sent shockwaves through Bulgaria, as the country begins to realise that the many Russians who bought real estate in the country may sooner or later become a powerful political force. The MP, who is from Vladimir Putin's United Russia party, was asked on Bulgarian television if his country would pursue a benevolent policy towards Bulgaria, if his party won the Sunday elections .

NEWSWATCH: “Why the Kremlin’s big win in Russian elections may not be a victory” – Christian Science Monitor/Fred Weir

1 Share
… United Russia … may have won a crushing victory in Sunday’s parliamentary elections … undoubtedly … a huge boost for … Putin. But the most common remark about the now-concluded election campaign is that it was “very boring.” … an odd moment for Russia …. buffeted by two years of economic recession and still-escalating political tensions with the West. [...]

A fresh start for a new version of the KGB

1 Share

A fresh start for a new version of the KGB

The centralization of the nation’s security forces within a new Ministry of State Security is either a pragmatic management move – or a precursor to the return of the all-powerful KGB of the Soviet era

The centralization of the nation’s security forces within a new Ministry of State Security is either a pragmatic management move – or a precursor to the return of the all-powerful KGB of the Soviet era.
Russian President Vladimir Putin heads the Security Council at the Novo-Ogaryovo residence outside Moscow, Russia, Monday, Sept. 12. Photo: RIA Novosti
Ahead of the upcoming presidential elections in 2018, the Kremlin will once again be restructuring its security forces. On Sept. 19 the daily newspaper Kommersant reported plans for a large-scale reform of the government’s security services: in place of the current Federal Security Service (FSB), there are plans to create a new Ministry of State Security, or MGB.
The reforms include the return of the Investigative Committee of the Public Prosecution Office after a five-year hiatus, as well as a plan to divide the duties of the Ministry for Emergency Situations between the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. There are genuine fears in the media and among experts that this means a return of the all-powerful KGB into the lives of ordinary Russian citizens.
Centralization of the nation’s intelligence apparatus
According to Kommersant’s sources, there is a concern that the activities of the old Soviet KGB will be taken over by the MGB. After the fall of the Soviet Union the various departments of the KGB turned into separate security forces, such as the Federal Protective Service (FSO), the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) and the FSB. Yet now these departments are going to be centralized once again.
“The KGB was broken up in the 1990s during a wave of democratic feeling, when it was said that this ‘monster’, the KGB, shouldn’t exist anymore – we had to break it up, so that it could not be so powerful and so frightening. Right now, however, this unified administration is once again considered to be effective,” Alexander Perendzhiev, a state security expert and associate professor in the Faculty of Political Sciences and Sociology at the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, toldRussia Direct.

Also read: "Inside the power struggle within the Russian elite"

This new administration will be called the Ministry of State Security (MGB). The newspaper added that only one department in the Federal Protective Service will remain unconnected with the MGB: the Presidential Security Service, which will monitor special communications and the transportation services of senior officials.
Not only will the new Ministry bring together Russia’s law enforcement agencies, but it will also fulfill new functions. In particular, the MGB will provide security services for all law enforcement and security administrations, meaning that it will, in fact, watch over itself.
It is also assumed that employees of the MGB will not just ensure investigations into criminal cases filed by the Investigative Committee and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, but they will also carry out procedural surveillance on these cases. The MGB will have priority over the Investigative Committee and the Russian police force, and it will also take responsibility for politically significant cases.
A power reshuffle
Those who came from the security services were the ones who set up the current state administration with Russian President Vladimir Putin, himself an ex-member of the KGB and FSB.
The military and security forces have been in the spotlight this year, with recent shakeups moving them into positions of power. During the summer, Evgeny Zinichev, head of the local FSB in Kaliningrad, became the governor of that region, while Dmitry Mironov, a former employee of the Federal Protective Service, was appointed as the head of the Yaroslavl Region.
Moreover, there have been signs of rivalry or even confrontation between different law enforcement agencies. For example, the head of the Federal Customs Service, Andrei Belyaninov, resigned in July. In September, Dmitry Zhakharchenko, the deputy head of the anti-corruption agency within Russia’s Interior Ministry, was arrested after 8.5 billion rubles ($131.4 million) were found in his house.
The media also reported on the possible dismissal of Alexander Bastrykin, the head of the Investigative Committee. And in spring, the Federal Migration Service and the Federal Drug Control Service were liquidated, their responsibilities being handed over to the police force.

Recommended: "The KGB saga: Vladimir Putin and the Litvinenko case"

Furthermore, in early April Putin announced the creation of a new National Guard, the personal security agency of the Russian president, headed by Viktor Zolotarev, Putin’s personal bodyguard. Ostensibly, this security body is supposed to focus on fighting terrorism and organized crime, including illegal drug trafficking. However, it could also indicate that Putin is concerned with his political future ahead of the upcoming presidential elections, scheduled for March 2018.
Following the recent parliamentary elections, the news about the MGB grabbed headlines this week. In fact, the country is preparing itself for a few changes: serious reform is likely within the Investigative Committee. In 2011 the administration of this institution broke off into the General Public Prosecution Office and the Investigative Committee of Russia, which once again created an array of contradictions between the leadership of these administrations. Yet now the two offices are going to be reunited once again.
One further important development that is likely to happen is the dissolution of the Ministry of Emergency Situations. As it was during the Soviet era, the Civil Defense forces will fall under administration of the Ministry of Defense and the fire services will return to the Interior Ministry.
As Kommersant reports, the preparations for reform began at the same time as the National Guard was being set up, meaning that these reforms were originally planned as one united reorganization. It is worth mentioning that although many security and military services have been consolidated into one united entity, the National Guard remains its own separate organization.
All these changes have been put in place ahead of the 2018 presidential elections, though it remains to be seen how such a large-scale reform will be implemented, and experts have estimated that the costs may run into the tens of billions of rubles. The President’s press secretary, Dmitri Peskov, and representatives for the security services have declined to comment on the rumors spreading about the reform.
What does this mean for Russia?
The abbreviation MGB is not a new one. This is exactly what the institution that followed the NKVD was called, and which later turned into the KGB [The NKVD is the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs, which was infamous for its political purges under Soviet leader Joseph Stalin in the 1930s – Editor’s note].
Historians of the Soviet era are well familiar with the Ministry of State Security back when Viktor Abamukov was its head, when it was set up directly after the Second World War in order to purge the ranks of the Soviet elite at the time. The MGB fought with all sorts of traitors and saboteurs – both real and imagined – and identified the corrupt individuals who had profited off the war.
However, despite its rather frightening name and its goal of bringing together all the security agencies under one institution, the new MGB may actually be a pragmatic idea, according to some experts.
“First, there is a real need to decrease the rivalry between the security services,” Perendzhiev toldRussia Direct. “Second, it is necessary to decrease costs to maintain these security agencies: after all, they are different and each of them is trying to get more funding. Third, it is important to optimize the management personnel. And, most importantly, it is crucial that this new institution [MGB] will enable the management of the national security system in a better way. All these agencies are underthe control of the President, who is the commander-in-chief. And all this is really a formidable task: The President is physically not able to coordinate all these structures. So, it is an attempt to alleviate his job.”
At the same time, Perendzhiev doesn’t think that the creation of the MGB is a sign that the government is tightening the screws. A centralized structure, he says, will just make it difficult for different agencies to compete with each other, since a decentralized system creates fertile ground for rivalries and behind-the-scenes maneuvering for power.

Also read: "The KGB: The spies who protect the Russian bear"

At the same time, Valery Khomyakov, the director of the Council for National Strategy, argues that the  security services will only benefit if they start informing against each other in search of traitors or spies. He doesn’t rule out the possibility that the reforms of the security system are part of the preparations for the 2018 presidential campaign.
“Somebody in the Kremlin is concerned that the conflicts within the law security agencies might lead to negative implications,” he told Russia Direct. “All this is undertaken not for the sake of convenience and heightened security, but to strengthen the power of the state.”
“This looks as if we have returned back to the past,” he says. “At worst, I am afraid, the authorities might reincarnate the so-called Fifth Directorate, which [during the period of the Soviet KGB] dealt with political investigations, looked for dissenters and put them in jails or mental health facilities.”
Read the whole story
 
· · · · · · · ·

RA’s Daily Russia News Blast – Sept 21, 2016 

1 Share
TODAY: CIA head says Putin will run in 2018, increase stronghold on society; founder of art collective Voina arrested in Czech Republic; NATO rejects Russian air safety proposal as a distraction; UN suspends aid to Syria after US alleges Russia attacked convoy; Putin to oversee launch of new oilfield; convicted rapist wins United Russia seat in Tver.
In a rare public statement, the head of the CIA’s Russia unit says he is anticipating that Vladimir Putin will run for re-election in 2018, and likely will build on the renaissance of ‘KGB Putin’ with a tightening up of authoritarian measures to keep order. (In line with  that the FSB is likely to be upgraded to a Soviet-style MGB.) Putin has been citing the words of Ivan Ilyin, ‘a prophet of Russian fascism’, in his annual speeches to the Federal Assembly for some years, notes this piece.  Oleg Vorotnikov, a founding member of the Russian underground art collective Voina who is wanted in Russia, has been detained in the Czech Republic ; the collective’s stunts included the painting of a giant phallus on the drawbridge near the FSB office in St Petersburg.  NATO has rejected Russia’s proposal for new air safety measures that would have required all planes in the Baltic to fly with operational transponders; the alliance argues that the proposal would do nothing to prevent the near misses with Russian jets that have happened in recent weeks, with some calling it a bid to distract from the goal to get Russia to increase transparency about its military exercises.
The UN has suspended overland aid deliveries in Syria, after the US claimed that Russia dropped bombs onto a UN aid convoy in Syria, destroying it and killing 20 people, and Western news organs have responded, calling the attack ‘a new low’; but Moscow denies that the attack was carried out by either Russian or Syrian planes. America’s UN ambassador, Samantha Power, says Russia needs to push the Syrian regime to end the current conflict.  Barack Obama, in his final UN speech as US President, warned Russia that its current foreign policy approach (a bid to recover what he called its ‘lost glory’, ouch) is making its borders unsafe.
The President will personally oversee the launch of Russia’s northernmost onshore oilfield at Vostochno-Messoyakha. Voters (or possibly stuffed ballots posing as voters) re-elected a United Russia politician to his seat in Tver, despite his rape conviction.
PHOTO: People walk past a sign reading “United Russia” on a building in central Stavropol, Russia, September 18, 2016.(EDUARD KORNIYENKO/Reuters)
Read the whole story
 
· ·

Top diplomats of Russia and UK discuss Syria and bilateral ties

1 Share

Sergey Lavrov and Boris Johnson meet in New York

Interview with Sky NEWS 

1 Share
Mikhail Khodorkovsky talks with Sky NEWS about his support of candidates in the State Duma elections, and gives his assessment of Russia under Putin, and what might come after http://video.news.sky.com/video/h264/vod/374/2016/09/DIGI170916RUSSIANPOLITIKSPARKSSPECIAL12MIN1474045863037374.mp4
The post Interview with Sky NEWS appeared first on Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 3

The reasons behind the Obama non-recovery 

1 Share
The Obama administration and some economists argue that the recovery since the Great Recession ended in 2009 has been unusually weak because of the recession’s severity and the fact that it was accompanied by a major financial crisis. Yet in a recent study of economic downturns in the U.S. and elsewhere since 1870, economist Tao Jin and I found that historically the opposite has been true. Empirically, the growth rate during a recovery relates positively to the magnitude of decline during the downturn.
In our paper, “Rare Events and Long-Run Risks,” we examined macroeconomic disasters in 42 countries, featuring 185 contractions in GDP per capita of 10% or more. These contractions are dominated by wartime devastation such as World War I (1914-18) and World War II (1939-45) and financial crises such as the Great Depression of the 1930s. Many are global events, some are for individual or a few countries.
On average, during a recovery, an economy recoups about half the GDP lost during the downturn. The recovery is typically quick, with an average duration around two years. For example, a 4% decline in per capita GDP during a contraction predicts subsequent recovery of 2%, implying 1% per year higher growth than normal during the recovery. Hence, the growth rate of U.S. per capita GDP from 2009 to 2011 should have been around 3% per year, rather than the 1.5% that materialized.
Read the rest of the article in The Wall Street Journal.

PH, Russia explore possible military deals

1 Share
The Department of Foreign Affairs on Wednesday said officials from the Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation briefed the Philippine Embassy in Moscow on the different aspects of possible Philippines-Russia military cooperation, including the acquisition of Russian military equipment and technology. The FSMTC is a federal agency directly under the Office of the President of the Russian Federation responsible for control and oversight in the field of military-technical cooperation between the Russian Federation and foreign countries.

NEWSLINK Newsweek.com: “UKRAINE REPORTS RUSSIA IS PRACTICING ITS READINESS FOR NUCLEAR CONFLICT”

1 Share
Ukraine’s military intelligence claims Russia’s nuclear forces have begun training, simulating the conditions of a large-scale conflict. Kiev’s military intelligence posted a statement on Facebook Wednesday, reporting that Russia’s 33 Guards Rocket Army, based in the western Siberian city of Omsk, had kicked off a nuclear combat practice drill. [featured image is file photo]

The new US-Russia ceasefire in Syria is unofficially over

1 Share

The new US-Russia ceasefire in Syria is unofficially over

A recent U.S. airstrike on positions of Syrian government forces was either a mistake – or a deliberate attempt to end the ceasefire almost before it started. In either scenario, the new Syrian ceasefire agreement appears to be over

A recent U.S. airstrike on positions of Syrian government forces was either a mistake – or a deliberate attempt to end the ceasefire almost before it started. In either scenario, the new Syrian ceasefire agreement appears to be over.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, center, sits with United Nations envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura, right, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during the International Syria Support Group meeting in New York on Sept. 20. Photo: AP
On Sept. 17 two American F-16 jets and two attack planes bombed the positions of the Syrian Arab Army, the forces of the Syrian President Bashar Assad in the eastern part of the country, in the city of Deir ez-Zor. Later it was revealed that a number of Australian, British and Danish jets, engaged in the coalition against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Greater Syria (ISIS), also participated in those air strikes.
The incident claimed the lives of about 62 people and left hundreds of Syrian soldiers injured, according to the report from the officials of Russia’s Defense Ministry. Meanwhile, ISIS militants strengthened their positions in eastern Syria.
Initially, the U.S. denied that the air strikes took place; however, afterwards, they admitted that the incident was an unintentional mistake. The U.S. had already conducted air strikes against the Syrian army in December 2015, which allowed ISIS to regain the positions held by Assad’s forces.  
The U.S. strike against the Syrian troops is a very important event, given the fact that the U.S.-Russia Syrian ceasefire agreement came into force on Sept. 12. According to this deal, the opposition and the official government forces were supposed to stop the violence within the country.
Under the new deal, Russia and the U.S. were supposed to shift their focus to the fight with radical terrorists, including the supporters of Jabhat al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda branch in Syria, a Sunni Islamist militia fighting against Syrian government forces in the Syrian civil war. Moreover, Moscow and Washington were supposed to exchange intelligence information, divide the spheres of their responsibilities and together conduct strikes against the radicals.
However, the U.S. attack in eastern Syria reveals some inconvenient facts: the lack of coordination between Moscow and Washington, as well as their serious differences over their ceasefire deal. If it were a provocation, its goal would be to pressure Russia and show that its influence in Syria could be limited. It would imply that, if Washington started supporting the opposition by bombing the Syrian forces, it might change the course of the civil war.
In addition, the Deir ez-Zor incident could be a good reason for the U.S. to withdraw from the Syria ceasefire deal with Russia. After all, Washington might be interested in that course of action, given the fact that the agreement didn’t resolve the contradictions over the list of the Syrian opposition groups that should be deemed as terrorist organizations. The link between radical Islamists and Syria’s moderate opposition might be a weak point of the U.S. in this regard.
However, one should keep in mind that the city of Deir ez-Zor, which was attacked by the U.S., is a sort of enclave and a strategically important point, because it is located at the crossroads of Iraq and Syria.

Also read: "What's at stake for Russia in the new Syrian ceasefire deal"

Because the Assad army primarily occupies the city, it disrupts the normal connection between two parts of the territories in Iraq and Syria that are controlled by terrorists. In fact, the city brings together thousands of Islamists, who are fighting against the Moscow-supported Assad army, the Washington-backed Kurdish forces, moderate opposition and Iraqi troops.
In addition, Deir ez-Zor is the place, where there is a lack of clarity regarding the responsibilities of the U.S. and Russia: It is the point where the Syrian Kurds and Iraqi forces meet. Moreover, the eastern part of Syria is the region that the Americans use to train the so-called New Syrian Army, which was recently defeated by ISIS.
By attacking the eastern part of Syria, the U.S. might seek to take the Syrian-Iraqi borders and prevent Syria from restoring territorial integrity, said Tarek Akhmad, the spokesperson for the so-called secular opposition group, Khmeimim, which agreed to reconcile with the Assad regime under Moscow’s mediation.
Russian and U.S. ambassadors exchanged mutual accusations during the emergency meeting of the UN Security Council called by Moscow. Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin accused Washington of aiding ISIS and shared the details of the U.S.-Russia agreement on Syria – details that were not planned to be disclosed as they could hamper the implementation of the agreement.
According to the consensus reached, Washington would target Jaish al-Fateh (an al-Nusra-led conglomerate of moderate and jihadist groups), separate al-Nusra’s and ISIS territories and, most significantly, coordinate the airstrikes of the U.S.-Russia joint group that was supposed to start working together on Sept. 18.

Recommended: "Making sense of the new US-Russian ceasefire in Syria"

“So, if the U.S. wanted to strike Jabhat al-Nusra, they could have waited just two days more and coordinated their actions with our military,” said Churkin.
Meanwhile, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power called this a “trick” and a “lie.” So, this barely looks like the basis for effective cooperation. What happened rather illustrates the threat posed to the U.S.-Russia compromise on Syria.
Therefore, there were no grounds to speak about real cooperation and a ceasefire. The separation of al-Nusra from the al-Fateh moderate groups influenced by the U.S. did not happen. American aviation strikes in the zone of the Russian coalition responsibility means that Washington is not ready to recognize already existing zones of responsibility in Syria or considers a “joint operation” against ISIS and al-Nusra to provide it the right to hit any position within the country.
Andrei Koshkin, a military expert and head of the Department of Political Analysis and Sociology at the Russian Economic University, argues that the main reason for the U.S. strike in Deir ez-Zor is Washington’s unwillingness to fulfill the conditions of the agreement.
Moreover, there are reports that militants surrounded in Aleppo are getting ready for a new offensive. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights also reported on airstrikes carried out for the first time since the start of the ceasefire.
Syrian or Russian air forces are most likely to be responsible for these attacks. Even though there was no official confirmation from the Russian military, this is a clear sign that Moscow can also refuse to implement the agreement after the American airstrike and the inability of both sides to separate the moderate and radical opposition groups.
Russian planes have carried out such maneuvers in the past, for example this summer, when they hit the secret supply base of U.S. Special Forces in eastern Syria. So, the Russian military is capable of hampering the U.S. and its allies’ activities on the ground.
“The situation is very difficult and the Russia-U.S. deal on Syria is hanging by a thread. We are not yet ready to admit the failure – everything depends on what the American reaction to the Russian position will be,” says Andrey Kortunov, general director of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC).
Meanwhile, Koshkin thinks that if Washington – with all its military and political weight  –  continues to act against the already fragile agreement, the ceasefire will not bring any results.
Rick Francona, U.S. military expert and retired lieutenant colonel, spoke to CNN and said that even though it is not yet clear what has actually happened in Deir Ez-Zor, it may put the implementation of the Russia-U.S. agreement at risk.

Also read: "What does the US-Russia agreement change in Syria?"

Kortunov also points out that the stakes are extremely high and it makes no sense to achieve one’s interests so irresponsibly. However, it does not mean that this can’t happen as there was the lack of trust between the parties before. As Elena Suponina, advisor to the director of the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies, noted just a day after the agreement was reached, there was still a great deal of mistrust between Moscow and Washington that needed to be overcome.
If Moscow and Washington fail to come up with a document that would clarify the terms of coordinating airstrikes and the list of groups that can be attacked, the situation will be dire. This will mean that the second ceasefire has ended with no result and that Washington has used the airstrike to exit the ceasefire when it became clear that it had nothing to gain from it.
Read the whole story
 
· · · · · · ·

BRICS nations seek - firm' legal framework against terror

1 Share
New York, Sep 21 : Strongly condemning recent terror attacks, including in India, the BRICS member nations sought a "firm" legal framework under the UN for concerted efforts to fight terrorism effectively and called for expediting negotiations to an international accord against the menace. India along with other BRICS member nations - Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa - in a meeting held here on the sidelines of the 71st session of UN General Assembly yesterday expressed concern that continued conflicts in several regions provided "fertile" grounds for terrorist activities.

Medvedev Warns Russia of Economic Reform’s ‘High Social Cost’ 

1 Share
(Moscow Times – themoscowtimes.com – September 22, 2016) Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has warned that the reforms needed to save Russia’s economy will have “a high social cost” for the Russian people. Writing in an article for Russian economic journal “Questions of Economics,” Medvedev pledged that Russian authorities would not revert to Soviet-style planning, but maintained that deregulation was [...]
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 4

[Medvedev:] New dynamics in Russia’s socioeconomic development 

1 Share
(Government.ru/Rossiyskaya Gazeta – September 22, 2016) Article by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev for the academic journal Voprosy Ekonomiki (Economic Issues) vopreco.ru/rus/redaction.files/10-16.pdf Abridged version (published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta): The Russian economy is undergoing a period of profound transformation. In the next few years Russia will have to fundamentally restructure its economic system in response to the challenges and changes of the [...]

Lost Trillions Haunt Russian Budget Keeper in Cheap-Oil Era

1 Share
(Bloomberg – bloomberg.com – Evgenia Pismennaya, Anna Andrianova – September 21, 2016) To get a snapshot of a budget in crisis, visit any of the 10,700 abandoned construction sites that litter Russia, all that’s left after a trickle of state funding ran dry. The costly clutter is one reason the head of the Audit Chamber, a government agency that monitors [...]

The results of the Duma elections send the wrong signal to the Kremlin

1 Share

The results of the Duma elections send the wrong signal to the Kremlin

What does the victory of the United Russia ruling party in the parliamentary elections mean for Russia’s political future and the nation’s upcoming presidential elections in 2018?

What does the victory of the United Russia ruling party in the parliamentary elections mean for Russia’s political future and the nation’s upcoming presidential elections in 2018?
Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, shakes hands with Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev prior to the Cabinet meeting in Moscow's Kremlin, Sept. 19. Photo: RIA Novosti
On Sept. 23, Russia’s Central Election Commission will announce the official results of the 2016 parliamentary elections that took place on Sept 18. However, it is already clear that the ruling United Russia party will win the majority of the votes, which leads to the following question: What does the party’s victory really mean for Russia’s political future and the upcoming presidential elections scheduled for 2018?
Over the past week, Russian experts, observers and business leaders tried to answer this question at events hosted by the Carnegie Moscow Center and the American Chamber of Commerce. There are two equal and opposing views on what the election results mean for Russia.
Some pundits assume that the authorities will keep tightening the screws, with the new parliament continuing to adopt restrictive laws and the economic situation worsening in the country. Meanwhile, other experts think otherwise: The new parliament will be able to meet economic and domestic challenges and won’t restrict political freedoms and human rights.

Also read: "Russia may not be so united behind United Russia"

At first glance, the assumption that the elections will have serious implications for Russia’s political future seems to be ungrounded, given the fact that this year’s elections to the State Duma, the lower chamber of the Russian parliament, didn’t change the current status quo. Moreover, there were no large-scale manipulations or evidence of vote-rigging. Political expert Dmitry Oreshkin said that the new head of the Central Election Committee, Ella Pamfilova, helped to make this year’s elections more transparent and “cleaner.” 
Yet the new parliament looks like the previous one, bringing together the same four parties – United Russia, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR), the Communist Party and A Just Russia – to govern the country, with few complaints about any electoral violations.
In fact, experts agree that the liberal opposition lost the elections fairly because of the absence of a cohesive political platform. According to Denis Volkov, a sociologist and an expert at the Moscow-based Levada polling center, the opposition just lacked any compelling or persuasive campaign messages.
At the same time, the low electoral turnout contributed to the failure of the opposition. Partly, it stems from the fact that the elections were shifted from December to September. The liberals didn’t have enough time in the fall to attract voters, who were on vacation in summer and only returned with a few weeks left in the electoral campaign.  
Two electoral universes within one system  
From the point of view of its electoral constituencies, Russia is not homogenous. In fact, “there are two electoral universes” in the country, said Oreshkin. The first one includes Moscow, St. Petersburg and some other regions in central Russia. It shares European democratic values and votes with a great deal of freedom, with United Russia’s popularity gradually decreasing and the electoral turnout being very low in these regions.
At the same time, the second electoral universe comprises more than 20 Russian regions, includingChechnya, the Kemerovo Region, Crimea and others. These regions tend to follow the Soviet or “state corporatist” style, with the people ordered to vote for specific parties and candidates. United Russia garners more than 60 percent of the vote, its political rankings grow and it performs well in terms of the electoral turnout in such regions - the so-called “zones of peculiar electoral culture,” as Oreshkin refers to them.
“All this reveals the social and cultural split within Russian society. While people in European Russia want one thing, people in the zones of peculiar electoral culture” prefer the other thing,” he warns, adding that the results in the regions with the Soviet electoral style might be rigged.
However, Volkov doesn’t agree. The high turnout in the regions and the favorable ratings for United Russia doesn’t necessarily mean that people vote against their will. They could really support the ruling party, he said during the discussion at the Carnegie Moscow Center.
What to expect from the new parliament?
While the elections won’t change the status quo, experts believe that they will have an impact on Russia’s political future and the 2018 presidential campaign.
Carnegie Moscow Center expert Andrei Kolesnikov is not optimistic about Russia’s political future. His pessimism stems from the fact that the Russian liberal opposition is not represented in the current edition of the State Duma. That’s why, he argues, the Russian parliament will be become what he calls “The Mad Printer 2.0” [“The Mad Printer” is the nickname of the State Duma for its abundance of hastily adopted prohibitive measures – Editor’s note]. And the fact that single-mandate candidates from different parties received the seats in the new Duma is not a game changer at all, because many of them are affiliated with United Russia.

Also read: "What to expect from the 2016 Russian parliamentary elections"

“The next Duma will be worse than the previous one,” he said during the discussion at the Carnegie Moscow Center. “There will be many more restrictive and senseless laws. This is the logic of any authoritarian regime.”
In contrast, Dmitry Orlov, the director of the Agency for Political and Economic Communication, argues that the ruling party “will be more respectable and decent.” It will expand its planning horizon to implement economic and political reforms. So, it doesn’t make sense to be aggressive, when it won the support from the majority. 
However, Oreshkin doesn’t agree. He warns that the results of the elections send the wrong message to the authorities and create the illusion of political stability, thus spurring complacency within the political elites. The danger is that the Kremlin receives the signal that it is following the right direction, which means it will keep sticking to its current course: It may waver only between tightening the screws and shaking up the political deck.
However, this perception is false and misleading, according to Oreshkin. From an outside perspective, it looks like a sign of victory, but from the inside, the system seems to be coming apart at the seams. The authorities are misled or they just don’t understand the real implications of the low electoral turnout, which is not a good sign in the long run at all, warns Oreshkin.    
What does the low turnout really mean?
Indeed, the fact that people didn’t come to the polling stations means that apathy in Russia is increasing, with voters disappointed with politicians and the State Duma, which is not the decision-maker in the country. This accounts for the very low turnout of the elections (less than 50 percent throughout the country).
The voters just don’t care about the elections and this apathy could be very different in its nature, argues Kolesnikov. The first type of apathy is common for those Russians who live in the regions — they just vote randomly without caring much about the results and the parties for which they vote.
The second type of apathy comes from the protest electorate in Moscow, St. Petersburg and the country’s other central cities. These voters are hopelessly disappointed with the Russian political system and, particularly, the State Duma itself. They believe that they won’t change the situation and won’t be able to influence the results of the elections by going to the polling station. And such apathy is not a good sign for Russia’s political future, because implicitly, it creates conditions for the adoption of restrictive laws.
Kolesnikov believes that the victory of United Russia is a quasi-success because the ruling party represents about one-fourth of the Russian population and “this may bring about serious problems” in the future.
“The results of the elections are a mix of hypnosis and auto-training. The hypnosis is for the population; the auto-training is for the authorities themselves,” the expert said, pointing out that the demand for paternalism in Russian society had a big impact on the results of the elections and overshadowed people’s concerns over the country’s economic challenges.

Read the interview with Leonid Gozman: "What do the Kremlin and the Russian opposition have in common?"

The narrative of Crimea’s incorporation into Russia and the recognition of Russia as a great power are behind the victory of the United Russia party. No wonder, then, many Russians voted for the ruling party, says Kolesnikov.
Alexander Shokhin, the president of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP), echoes this view. He sees the United Russia victory as “decisive” and this is the result of the Crimea consensus and the approval of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s policy by the population. It also stems from the West’s tough policy toward Moscow, because it forces ordinary Russians to unite around their national leader and the ruling party. In this regard, the confrontation between Russia and the West might indirectly contribute to the victory of Putin in 2018, suggested Shokhin at the Sept. 22 Annual Business and Investment Conference, organized by American Chamber of Commerce in central Moscow.
Links between the Duma and presidential elections
The fact the elections results maintain the political status quo reveals a dangerous trend: It creates a fragile system of political equilibrium, in which everybody is afraid of conducting decisive reforms and measures due to the fear of making a mistake. Any mistake could worsen one’s positions within the system of power, argues Kolesnikov.
“The decision-making process is postponed because of the fear of committing a mistake,” Kolesnikov said. It is because the priority for the Kremlin is stability. When politicians are looking for stability, it means that they are not ready for decisive measures.
Boris Titov, Russia’s business ombudsman and the leader of the Party of Growth (which failed to win more than 3 percent of the vote in the elections), echoes Kolesnikov’s view. Russia needs to be more decisive and it has to take more risks in the future to foster economic growth, he said during the American Chamber of Commerce’s conference in Moscow.
 According to him, diversifying the economy and overcoming the long-standing economic crisis is key to maintaining stability in the country, especially before the 2018 presidential elections. He argues that Russia should take risks and replace “sluggish defensive [economic] policy” with a “more offensive and even aggressive one.”

Also read: "Russians share their views on parliamentary elections"

At the same time, Orlov believes that the 2016 State Duma elections are “an attempt to reset the support of the post-Crimea majority” and persuade voters to elect Putin once again in 2018. Yet earning such support and making the elections more legitimate require a higher electoral turnout, which might be difficult given the current economic situation and widespread political apathy among the population.
Orlov is sure that it won’t be a major obstacle for Putin and the turnout will be high, because Russians look at the presidential elections more seriously. Moreover, Putin’s approval rankings are always high, and that guarantees a certain level of turnout.
However, Oreshkin thinks otherwise. The turnout will depend on “what will happen in the country over the next two years.” After all, Putin has a penchant for showing off his heroic deeds before the population. So, the results and the turnout of the upcoming elections depend on the president’s future decisions.
Read the whole story
 
· · · · · · · · · ·

Russian election chiefs to investigate Reuters findings of irregularities

1 Share
Russia's national election authority said it would look into evidence found by Reuters of inflated turnout figures and people voting more than once at three polling stations in two regions during a parliamentary election at the weekend. An election commission member sits with her eyes closed at a polling station in the village of Knyazevo in the Republic of Bashkortostan, Russia, September 19, 2016.

Senate and House Dems accuse Russia of using hackers to influence the election

1 Share
Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee Sen. Dianne Feinstein arrives at a briefing on July 31, 2014 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC The top Democrats on the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives intelligence committees accused Russia on Thursday of trying to influence the Nov. 8 U.S. election via computer hacking, and called on President Vladimir Putin to order a halt. "Based on briefings we have received, we have concluded that the Russian intelligence agencies are making a serious and concerted effort to influence the U.S. election," Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Adam Schiff said in an unusually strongly worded joint statement.

The Middle East's time of troubles: The view from Russia

1 Share

The Middle East's time of troubles: The view from Russia

A new report from a group of leading Middle East experts in Russia lays out the primary challenges facing the troubled region

A new report from a group of leading Middle East experts in Russia lays out the primary challenges facing the troubled region.
Smoke rises from a small-scale operation distilling crude oil into diesel and other products near al-Jawadiyah, Syria. Photo: Tyler Hicks/The New York Time
On Sept. 19, the Valdai Discussion Club presented a new report, “The Middle East in a Time of Troubles: Traumas of the Past and Challenges of the Future,” which analyzes the primary factors that have led to the destabilization of the region. The report was prepared by a team of Middle East experts from the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, supervised by the Institute’s President, Vitaly Naumkin.
The authors of the report point out that trends that began in the Middle East with the Arab Spring six years ago are now posing security challenges for a broader geographic region that now includes Russia. These destabilizing factors include the weakening or destruction of state institutions, bloody civil wars, conflicts escalating and spilling over into neighboring territories, humanitarian crises and the spread of terrorism.
Unfortunately, the interference of external actors into other countries’ domestic affairs using political, financial and military means did not bring the desired results and only led to the deterioration of the regional security architecture. As a result, the entire region has found itself in a much more volatile situation than it was before 2011.
Destabilizing factors
One of the key destabilizing factors for the current situation in the region is the strengthening of religious identity at the expense of state identity. This leads to a dangerous form of de-secularization, argues Irina Zvyagelskaya, senior research fellow of the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Institute of Oriental Studies.
De-secularization leads to decreased trust in state institutions and thus to erosion of the state power vertical and its influence on the population. “Nation-states are in crisis as internal contradictions grow along religious, ethnic and other lines. It also contributes to the weakness of the state institutions and a low level of trust in them on the part of citizens,” Zvyagelskaya points out.
Total or partial disintegration of state institutions in Libya, Yemen and Syria are vivid examples of how systemic efforts to influence the situation from the outside have failed. This naturally increases the volatility in the region and results in crises spreading further in the region.
The crisis of the state in places like Libya, Syria and Yemen has created a trend toward disintegration that is hard to restrain. The current situation in Sudan and the recent coup attempt in Turkey vividly demonstrate that the crisis in the Middle East is spreading and is far from over, argued Naumkin.
Almost all experts recognize rising fundamentalism as one of the major destabilizing factors in the Middle East. “The rise of non-state actors and their irresponsible actions, together with rising religious fundamentalism pose a huge threat to the region,” argues Hay Yanorocak, a researcher at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University.
Against this backdrop, Khaled Yacoub Oweis of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs suggests that, “The key destabilizing factor for the Middle East is the rule of the minorities over majorities and repression conducted by the regimes. This sparked revolts against authoritarian rulers and ultimately threw the countries and the region into chaos.”
In light of the recently struck Syria deal between Russia and the U.S., the panelists touched on the most important issue that also serves a main obstacle to the implementation of the Syrian ceasefire – how to effectively divide the moderate and radical opposition in Syria. This still remains the most difficult task. As the terrorist threat primarily emanates from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Greater Syria (ISIS) and Jabhat Al Nusra, it is crucial to find effective ways to weaken them.
Despite all the efforts undertaken by Russia and U.S.-led coalitions in their fight against terrorists in Syria and Iraq, “the fight is far from over,” argued Naumkin. “We can destroy ISIS in Mosul and Raqqa, but the problem is not in the organization itself, as it can be quickly replaced by another one. It is the jihadist movement that constantly recruits new followers locally, regionally and internationally,” Naumkin said. This is why more cohesion is needed both on the local and international level.
Another important trend is that the conventional power balance in the region has changed. The traditional Arab triangle of power  Egypt, Syria and Iraq  lost its influence in the region, while non-Arab states – Iran, Turkey and Israel  grew stronger. The Arab world has become deeply fragmented, which sparked competition among the Arab states and created a new struggle along sectarian lines.
In that regard, the current confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia (often depicted as a Sunni-Shia confrontation) is central in the region, as it extends throughout the entire region: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Bahrain. It only further destabilizes the situation and increases risks of abrupt escalation across the region. “If the Saudi-Iranian confrontation were resolved – that would be a key,” notes Naumkin.

Also read Russia Direct Report: "Russia's New Strategy in the Middle East"

Russia’s role in the Middle East 
Since Russia is the major supporter of the Syrian government and has been directly involved in the Syrian conflict since 2015, many have started to talk about its return to the region and its rising influence there. However, experts assess the nature of its role differently.
Vitaly Naumkin and the co-authors of the report argue that the increased involvement of Russia in the Middle East is stabilizing and it plays a key role in fighting against terrorism.
Yanorocak argues that, “The Russians owe 51 percent of their success in the region to U.S. President Barack Obama’s passive policy in Syria. Obama lost his credibility and global deterrence after he did not stick to his ‘red line’ in Syria. Hence, seeing this as a sign of weakness, Russia began to act more assertively in the region.”
Oweis characterizes Russia’s role in the Middle East as inherently contradictory. “On the one hand Russia bombs Syria and its Sunni rebels and on the other, it tries to be an arbiter  it does not work this way. If Russia wants to play a constructive role, it needs to side with the majority, and not support the minority,” suggests Oweis.

Recommended: "What are the prospects for the Russia-US ceasefire in Syria?"

Is there any way out of the Middle East crisis?
As the Middle East is currently the key source of various threats, the major players have to be interested in the settlement of all regional issues.
“Although a significant portion of the Middle East issues is about security, we should not forget about other issues such as economic development, water, education, etc. which also need to be discussed,” suggests Zvyagelskaya. Indeed, revitalization of the debates over these issues can lay a positive ground for building a more stable environment as those issues are less politicized.
As the authors of the report suggested, the most effective way out of the crisis in the Middle East although the most difficult one  is to create a new Middle East security system where the concerns and interests of all major players – Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and other Arab states  are taken into account and where all of them will play an equal role.
Read the whole story
 
· · · · · · ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 5

Russia’s security services are trying to reform their way out of the shadows 

1 Share
10838229_1015976098430355_7234058766256563378_o.jpgSweeping reforms to Russia’s power ministries show that the FSB has the country’s security monopoly in its sights.

 Sudden and sweeping reforms to Russia’s security ministries don’t signal a return to the Soviet Union, but a new balance of power. (c) Ivan Sekretarev / AP / Press Association Images. All rights reserved.This article originally appeared in Russian on RBC. We are grateful for the opportunity to repost it here. 
For 17 years now, the KGB’s offspring has ruled Russia. They’re everywhere — business, politics, public services. They run the economic security departments in the majority of banks and the most important departments in Russia’s “power ministries” (known informally as the siloviki). Outside the capital, young security officers become regional ministers and heads of various agencies. These are the people that, at the start of the Putin era, consciously chose to build a career in the FSB. Often, they’re the sons of Soviet security men. 
Today, the FSB is in a non-stop regime — vacuuming up all the information it can, launching various campaigns (whether political or criminal) and controlling them. People in the legal profession often come across polite letters from the heads of regional FSB departments addressed to local prosecutors or police chiefs with requests to keep a particular someone under watch. These requests often end in administrative or criminal cases against that particular individual, or law suits with a guaranteed result. 
The chekists, as they’re known, have long believed that they are Russia’s chosen ones. In recent months, the FSB has moved against two of its main institutional rivals and, on Monday, it was revealed that the Kremlin plans to create a new “Ministry of State Security”. What is going on?

Out of the shadows

In the beginning, Russia’s security services were careful to hide their involvement. But gradually, they stopped being so shy, though they continued to act through intermediaries: the Center for Combating Extremism (“Center E”) and the Investigative Committee worked against Russia’s opposition, the police force’s economic crimes department focused on business, the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Justice – against NGOs, and the penitentiary service (FSIN) – against already convicted activists.
But then, together with their rivals in the Investigative Committee and Ministry of Internal Affairs, we began to catch glimpses of the FSB in investigation footage more and more often.
The Russian authorities’ entire campaign against corruption is now firmly (and exclusively) associated with the FSB
The story of Igor Krasnov, former deputy head of Russia’s Investigative Committee, is revealing here. In 2009, Krasnov ran the investigation into the shocking murders of human rights lawyer Stanislav Markelov and journalist Anastasiya Baburova. Nine months after Markelov and Baburova were shot dead in central Moscow, the investigation was cracked thanks to lengthy audio surveillance on the apartment where the neo-Nazi group responsible was hiding. But instead of informing Alexander Bastrykin, his superior, Krasnov focused on confirming the material evidence for future investigation and trial. As a result, the FSB, which had provided back-up to the investigation, beat Krasnov to it, with Alexander Bortnikov, head of the service, informing Putin of the investigation’s success. For this, Krasnov was nearly fired. 
In the past 18 months, FSB officers have become recurring characters in a long chain of surveillance videos showing the detention of Russia’s top public officials. Governors, heads of federal ministries and their deputies, big businessmen with extensive connections to public officials — they’ve all found themselves the targets of recent criminal investigations. These “estates”, which were previously untouchable, have begun to lose their immunity from prison. 
The recent arrests of generals in the Investigative Committee on corruption charges in July this year, as well as last week’s raid on the apartment of anti-corruption police colonel Dmitry Zakharchenko,who was found with $120m in cash in his study, signals that we’re entering the peak of this campaign. The Russian authorities’ entire campaign against corruption is now firmly (and exclusively) associated with the FSB. This is partially because the security service does not feature in any comparable scandal. 
However, it’s not enough to collective kompromat (“compromising material”) and detain your suspect red-handed. You have to compile a criminal case according to the rules, you have to convincingly (particularly in big cases) support the prosecution in court and, in the end, make sure the guilty verdict fits. And if the “service” is often successful in the final third, the FSB has often been thwarted on everything else by the investigators, who have continued to act as independent players.

Defeating the competition

Indeed, the FSB arrested high-ranking members of Russia’s Investigative Committee in July preciselyfor their resistance to the investigation of Shakro Molodoy, a notorious organised crime boss. It was precisely for aiding people involved in the corruption charges against former Komi governor Vyacheslav Gaizer that the FSB arrested police colonel Dmitry Zakharchenko. Both cases are, in effect, stories of failed attempts to resist the FSB’s rather sudden monopoly on criminal investigations. 
Prior to his rather “loud” departure, Vladimir Markin, former spokesman of the Investigative Committee, managed to hint at the weakness of the FSB’s ability to investigate in comparison to his own agency’s talent for corruption investigations. Markin’s attempt to remind us of the Committee’s former “investigative monopoly” was addressed, undoubtedly, to Russia’s president Vladimir Putin. But it was also a challenge to the FSB, which, since the start of the year, has begun to gradually seize the role of investigator.
There have been reports that the FSB has maintained wiretaps on a huge number of top public officials and businessmen for a long time without any court orders. And this isn’t because the judges might refuse them, but to avoid any chance that this information might get out.
Directly before the Interior Ministry and Investigative Committee were seriously discredited in these recent arrests, two other players were removed from the siloviki realm — the Federal Drug Control Service (FSKN) and Federal Migration Service (FMS). Viktor Ivanov, head of the FSKN, had already been a lame duck for the previous 12 months: the decision to liquidate the FSKN was taken at the start of 2015, but he asked for this to be postponed, and was the first to announce the ministry’s liquidation and the mistake therein. 
The siloviki field has thus been cleansed, and the conditions created for the FSB to attack its main rivals for the monopoly on criminal investigations
Here we should recall the FSB’s 2007 confrontation with the FSKN, which, at the time, was managed by former chekist Viktor Cherkesov. Back then, the FSKN felt itself to be an influential enough player to cut across Nikolai Patrushev’s FSB. The fact that Russia’s Drug Control Service had lost this battle became clear when Cherkesov published an article in Kommersant in which he asked members of the security community not to attack one another. The intervening years have seen the FSKN gradually lose its influence, though by law it remains one of the three state agencies that can conduct investigations, organise wiretaps and apply other means to collect information secretly. 
After the FSKN and the Federal Migration Service were liquidated in summer this year, the Kremlin decided to create the National Guard, which found itself with some 500,000 police officers and a significant part of the Interior Ministry’s budget. Clearly, in the next few years, this new security ministry will have to solve some important political problems. But apart from this, the National Guard took away the Interior Ministry’s main source of income outside the state budget — extra-ministerial protection services. In essence, Russia’s police have had all their “off-the-books” sources of income taken away, which has sharply reduced its independence and, at the same time, increased external oversight. 
The siloviki field has thus been cleansed, and the conditions created for the FSB to attack its main rivals for the monopoly on criminal investigations — the Interior Ministry (in terms of operational and search activities) and Investigative Committee (in terms of investigations). 

Power reforms 

Thus, the picture today looks as follows: 
1. The FSB is openly claiming the monopoly to investigative work at minimum on criminal cases that are politically significant. It’s unlikely the FSB is interested in running criminal cases on thefts, possession or domestic murders.
2. The money in the Russian state budget is decreasing, which means less budget resources and more efficiency — hence, cuts to personnel and an end to doubling of state functions across ministries.
3. Russia has entered the election cycle, and the Kremlin has rather easily solved the tactical problem of maintaining control over parliament. Now it has to prevent the risks of turbulence ahead of the presidential elections. Here it’s not question of possible public competition, but instead a battle behind-the-scenes for proximity to the future head of state — whether it’s Vladimir Putin or one of his successors.
4. From 2012, when Dmitry Medvedev’s liberalism was switched out for Putin’s conservatism (and the constellation of power fundamentally changed), new interest groups and centres of influence have formed, and others have suffered defeat. There is now a need to fix this new balance of power in legislation and organisational structure. 

The new order 

All of these assumptions come back to the need for system-side transformations in Russia’s law enforcement. It’s not worth dwelling on the “terrible” name of the Ministry of State Security (the initials MGB recall the title of the Soviet Union’s post-war security ministry). Instead, this is a much deeper and thought-out reform. And the leaked news of its creation in Kommersant on Monday might not have been organised by its supporters, but, on the contrary, its opponents.
For instance, last week the Interior Ministry presented a draft bill on the creation of a municipal police force. This fact that this bill proposed transferring 90% of inquest and investigation functions on various insignificant criminal matters to the local level, together with the strain this would place on municipal and regional budgets, fits in with the assumptions above. 
Alexander Bastrykin’s concept of a Russian FBI (organised under him) could easily be realised under the auspices of the FSB or through the creation of a new ministry with investigative powers on the most significant categories of crimes against the federal authorities. Thus, a classic American dual system emerges — a federal power ministry focused on national-level crimes with investigative powers, plus a local municipal police force working on the lion’s share of offences.
From now on, “corruption” will essentially be stealing from this one group, to which everything silently belongs
In addition, we can expect to see the General Prosecutor’s Office and Ministry of Justice merge according to the same US model, with the ensuing liquidation of the former (it’s harder to get rid of the GPO, it’s mentioned in the constitution). We can also expect to see a return of the emergency workers and firefighters into the Ministry of Defence. The Federal Penitentiary Service will remain a semi-independent structure, possibly in the framework of a unified General Prosecutor’s Office and Ministry of Justice (Russia’s membership of the Council of Europe demands that the country’s prison agency is separate from the investigatory agencies). 
As a result, the amount of money the Russian state spends on its siloviki is going to go down, and they’re going to work harder. The cuts to personnel and end to overlapping functions across agencies will cover the expense of the reform itself. Russia’s power ministries may well end up working more effectively. 
Indeed, in a situation where power belongs to a single, concrete group, we won’t even have to talk about corruption, but a certain order of things. From now on, “corruption” will essentially be stealing from this one group, to which everything silently belongs.
Want to know more about Russia's increasingly authoritarian future? Read about how public and private interests intersect in Moscow's urban redesign.
Sideboxes
Rights: 
CC by NC 4.0
Read the whole story
 
· · · · · · · · ·

Kalashnikov Corporation signs contracts with 15 new countries over 2 years 

1 Share

The Kalashnikov Corporation’s book of foreign orders exceeds $200 mln

Аналитик намекнул, что Путину грозит резкое ухудшение здоровья - Главред

1 Share

Главред

Аналитик намекнул, что Путину грозит резкое ухудшение здоровья
Главред
"Причиной для оглашения досрочных президентских выборов может стать резкое ухудшение состояния здоровья нынешнего главы РФ Владимира Путина. Интересно, что время от времени в СМИ дозировано проскакивает информация о том, что у Путина якобы есть проблемы со ...

and more »

U.S., Russia lose illusions, recognize limits in Syria fight - UPI.com

1 Share

UPI.com

U.S.Russia lose illusions, recognize limits in Syria fight
UPI.com
And now, after the Russian-Turkish and Russian-U.S. compromises, as well as the expected normalization of relations between Damascus and Ankara, Saudi Arabia finds itself in diplomatic isolation. Riyadh will not be able to sabotage the U.S.-Russian ...
As US and Russia fall out, others eye their own Syria goalsCNN
Vladimir Putin the biggest beneficiary of the Syrian ceasefire, whether it's salvaged or notNational Post

all 269 news articles »

В Киеве заявили, что НАТО увеличит помощь Украине - РИА Новости

1 Share

РИА Новости

В Киеве заявили, что НАТО увеличит помощь Украине
РИА Новости
КИЕВ, 23 сен — РИА Новости. НАТО заверила Украину в том, что будет наращивать помощь для усиления обороноспособности и реформировании национального сектора безопасности и обороны страны, сообщила в пятницу пресс-служба Министерства иностранных дел Украины.
Киев хочет быть особым партнером НАТОВести.Ru
Порошенко попросил НАТО о новом уровне сотрудничестваLenta.ru
Киев просит НАТО об особом партнерствеТАСС
ИА REGNUM -Последние новости в мире -РИА Новости Украина -УНИАН
Все похожие статьи: 30 »

Robb: Obama's United Nations speech proves why his foreign policy has failed - azcentral.com

1 Share

azcentral.com

Robb: Obama's United Nations speech proves why his foreign policy has failed
azcentral.com
As Obama put it in his U.N. speech: “We are all stakeholders in this international system, and it calls upon all of us to invest in the success of institutions to which we belong.” ... For example, in his U.N. speech, Obama said the following about ...

and more »
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 6

In Ukraine, a New Approach to Peace - STRATFOR

1 Share

STRATFOR

In Ukraine, a New Approach to Peace
STRATFOR
As the cease-fire in Syria crumbles, negotiations over another area of contention between Moscow and the West — Ukraine — seem to be faring better. At a meeting in Minsk on Wednesday, representatives from UkraineRussia and the Organization for ...

and more »

No comments:

Post a Comment