RUSSIA and THE WEST - РОССИЯ и ЗАПАД

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?

Polling stations during the Russian election day, as seen from the surveillance cameras on Sept. 18. Photo: TASS

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
Friday September 23rd, 2016 at 11:15 AM

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.

Relations between Moscow and Brussels since the beginning of the Ukraine conflict leave much to be desired. Photo: AP

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?
Friday September 23rd, 2016 at 11:14 AM

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

Page 2

Russian MP: 'We will buy Bulgaria, we already bought half of the coast'
Friday September 23rd, 2016 at 11:13 AM

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 Weirby JRL Russia List
Friday September 23rd, 2016 at 11:13 AM

… 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
Friday September 23rd, 2016 at 11:12 AM

Russia Beyond The Headlines

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 by Citizen M
Friday September 23rd, 2016 at 11:11 AM

Robert Amsterdam

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 tiesby TASS
Friday September 23rd, 2016 at 11:10 AM

Sergey Lavrov and Boris Johnson meet in New York

Interview with Sky NEWS by Editorial
Friday September 23rd, 2016 at 11:10 AM

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://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

Page 3

The reasons behind the Obama non-recovery by Kaavya Ramesh
Friday September 23rd, 2016 at 11:01 AM

– 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 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
Friday September 23rd, 2016 at 11:01 AM

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”by JRL Russia List
Friday September 23rd, 2016 at 11:00 AM

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
Friday September 23rd, 2016 at 11:00 AM

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
Friday September 23rd, 2016 at 10:59 AM

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’ by JRL Russia List
Friday September 23rd, 2016 at 10:57 AM

(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

Page 4

[Medvedev:] New dynamics in Russia’s socioeconomic development by JRL Russia List
Friday September 23rd, 2016 at 10:57 AM

(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 Eraby JRL Russia List
Friday September 23rd, 2016 at 10:57 AM

(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
Friday September 23rd, 2016 at 10:56 AM

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?

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
Friday September 23rd, 2016 at 10:55 AM

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
Friday September 23rd, 2016 at 10:55 AM

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
Friday September 23rd, 2016 at 10:54 AM