#2
Interfax
December 29, 2015
Russians recall most important events of 2015

The terror attack perpetrated onboard the Russian Kogalymavia airline's plane in Egypt (39 percent) and the Russian Sukhoi Su-24 bomber downed by Turkey (34 percent) have been called by Russians the most important events of 2015, the Levada Center told Interfax.

Respondents also mentioned the Russian military operation in Syria (28 percent) and terror attacks in Paris (21 percent). The Levada Center polled 1,600 respondents in 137 populated localities in 48 regions on Dec. 18-21. They were invited to choose no more than six options from the list.

Economic events were no less important, among them the ruble fall at the beginning of the year (29 percent), the oil price fall and the soaring dollar at the end of the year (27 percent), the Western sanctions against Russia (22 percent), the countermeasures by the Russian authorities (10 percent) and the destruction of embargoed food (5 percent).

The list of the main events of the year included the 70th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 (27 percent) and the 'Immortal Regiment' campaign (17 percent).

Events related to Ukraine were highlighted, too, among them the hostilities in Donbass (17 percent), the Minsk agreements (9 percent), the pullback of heavy armaments from the contact line in Donbass (6 percent), and the energy and goods blockade of Crimea (9 percent).

Other events included the influx of refugees from the Middle East and Africa into Europe (16 percent), the A320 crash in southern France (9 percent), the terror attack on a Tunisian beach (6 percent), and the sanctions imposed on Turkey (11 percent).

Other important events mentioned by Russians included the Nobel Prize awarded to writer Svetlana Alexievich and the Manezh show pogrom by Orthodox activists (2 percent each), the Vaclav Havel award presented to human rights activist Lyudmila Alexeyeva and international awards received by Andrei Zvyagintsev's Leviathan film (1 percent each).

[return to Contents] 

#3
AP
December 29, 2015
In Russia, Recession Takes a Bite Out of the Holiday Feast

MOSCOW - For most Russians, it's not New Year's without a Salad Olivier, a dish meant to augur prosperity. This year, soaring food costs mean the tradition can also be a painful reminder of how rapidly many Russians' wealth is fading amid recession and Western sanctions.

The mix of chicken, potatoes, peas, carrots and mayonnaise - which was introduced by a Belgian chef in the 19th century, and shed richer ingredients like grouse and crayfish amid food shortages under the Soviets - will cost 35 percent more to prepare this year. The stiff rise, reported by the federal statistics office, comes amid the deepest economic downturn in President Vladimir Putin's 15 years in office.

The economy has been in decline for a couple years due to sanctions and a slump in the price of Russia's valuable oil exports. But this New Year's Eve will arguably be the first in more than a decade when Russians are feeling the pain of recession at the table.

"Before, you could buy jewelry or expensive perfume for the New Year," says 65-year old Nikolai Skomorokhov, who retired this month. "This time, it's about the bare minimum. We're mostly spending on the celebration."

Skomorokhov, who is visiting his daughter and grandchildren in Moscow for the holidays from his hometown of Valdai in the north-west, says the usual items he would buy for the holiday became 30 to 40 percent more expensive over the year, causing him cut down on spending.

The national currency, the ruble, has fallen about 20 percent against the dollar this year, on top of a 40 percent slide in 2014, pushing up the price for imported goods. A Russian ban on Western food imports, imposed in retaliation for U.S. and European economic sanctions, has further hurt supply, pushing up prices.

Official consumer price inflation was around 12 percent this year, but New Year's shopping shows a much higher rate.

The rise in the cost of a Salad Olivier, which is sometimes used informally as a benchmark for the cost of living since it contains several staple ingredients, is indicative of a rise in food costs. Groceries for a typical holiday dinner for two including vegetables, sausage, cheese, pickles and chicken would cost 5,790 rubles ($80) this year, 28 percent higher than a year ago.

"This year, Russians are celebrating without much joy because the year has been tough," says Marina Krasilnikova, a researcher at the polling agency Levada. "People are growing less confident in the economic situation of the country."

Retail sales were down 13 percent in November compared with a year earlier, the sharpest decline since 2000, the economic development ministry said in a report this week. In recent years, as Russia's oil-fueled economy was stagnating, retail sales were supporting the economy. Not anymore.

"Unlike during the 2008-2009 crisis, the food consumption has fallen as dramatically as the consumption of durable goods in 2015," the ministry's report said, adding that Russians are cutting down on food as the prices rise.

Worries about the economy featured prominently in Putin's annual news conference earlier this month, when journalists from state-owned media, not known for asking tough questions, grilled the president about falling incomes and living standards. Yet the majority of Russians tend not to blame Putin, whose popularity remains buoyed by the annexation of Crimea in 2014, but his government.

81-year old Iraida Robkova says the 2000s were probably the most secure and happy years of her life before the economy went downhill last year: "We were free to speak what we wanted, to buy what we wanted, travel wherever we wanted and the prices were not that high."

Robkova, who lives in Moscow, spends at least 2,500 rubles ($35) a month on medicine - while the state-sponsored allocation is just 800 rubles ($11) - and says she would not be able to afford a New Year's dinner if it wasn't for her daughter and son-in-law, who also help her pay for groceries and utilities.

Robkova blames the economic problems on Putin's state ministers.

"Putin did a great thing: he got us Crimea back," she says. "But things are difficult for him. His team is weak."

Economists are warning that lower incomes and higher prices are pushing millions back below the poverty line.

About 39 percent of Russians now say they are either short of money to buy food or cannot afford new clothes, compared to 22 percent just a year ago, according to a recent poll by VTsIOM. Some 1,600 people were surveyed by phone in mid-December in the poll, which had a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

Times are getting tougher even for those who left low-paying jobs in the regions in search of higher wages in Moscow and other big cities.

Asya Yusupova, 47, moved to Moscow from the economically depressed Dagestan region in the south, where she made 8,200 rubles ($114) a month as an arts teacher. She now works 12 hours a day as a nanny and lodges with her employers in the city center.

For Yusupova, the official inflation rate of 12 percent does not reflect reality: "Things are much more expensive now, maybe even, twice as much."

For her, recession is not about giving up perks like Salad Olivier but spending less on essentials.

"I have to cut on clothes," says Yusupova. "I would like to pay for after-school classes for my children, but I can't afford it now."

Krasilnikova, the researcher at Levada, says Russians are unlikely to buy goods to hoard them, like they did last December, when the ruble tanked - simply because they have largely spent their savings.

"Only a third of Russians have savings. And people have been spending them the past year and a half," Krasilnikova said. "People will still be enjoying the holiday but fewer people will have a feeling that the new year will be better than this one."
 

 [return to Contents] 

 #4
Russia Direct
www.russia-direct.org
December 28, 2015
World Order in 2015 as seen by Putin
A new documentary screened on Russian state TV offers little new in the Kremlin's approach to foreign policy but leaves Vladimir Putin looking surprisingly sanguine on relations with the West and reveals contradictions in his policy.
By Ivan Tsvetkov
van Tsvetkov is Associate Professor of American Studies, International Relations Department, St. Petersburg State University. He is an expert in the field of historical science and contemporary U.S. policy and U.S.-Russian relations. Since 2003, he has been the author and administrator of the educational website "History of the United States: Materials for the course" (http://ushistory.ru)

In late December the Rossiya 1 TV channel premiered another documentary starring Russian President Vladimir Putin, the third one in 2015.  Previously, the channel had showed Crimea: The Way Home, dedicated to the first anniversary of the accession of Crimea to Russia, and The President, commemorating Putin's first presidential term, which started 15 years ago.

The new documentary, titled World Order, is not officially tied to any historic event, but quite accurately reflects a key trend in Russian politics towards the end of 2015: The Kremlin is striving to shift attention away from domestic issues and problems on Russia's borders to flaws in the global order and relations between superpowers.

The film is the work of renowned pro-government journalist and TV personality Vladimir Solovyov, who frequently records extended interviews with Putin. That comes as no surprise: Solovyov is extremely loyal to the party in power and never asks difficult questions.

Nevertheless, the documentary was highly anticipated following the release of the preview. The title itself implied that Putin and the other influential figures who agreed to be featured in the movie would have something new to say about the current state of international relations, Russia's plans in Syria, and its strategy on cooperation with the U.S., Europe, China, and other key global players.

Short on originality

However, almost all expectations proved futile. The film turned out to be exceptionally boring and predictable. Neither Putin, nor the other people who shared their views in the movie had anything original to say.

The storyline followed the talking points from Putin's infamous 2007 Munich speech: American hegemony, the inadmissibility of breaking international laws, the damaging consequences of color revolutions, etc.

The documentary, which lasted over two hours, can be summed up in one sentence: By irresponsibly interfering with the internal affairs of sovereign states and disturbed the Greater Middle East, the U.S. has increased the international terrorist threat. Russia is taking a more reasonable approach and encourages everyone to comply with the United Nations Charter.

To further its points and prove its allegations, the film showed footage from Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Syria. Famous Australian whistleblower Julian Assange, well-known U.S. film director Oliver Stone, and former French politician Dominique Strauss-Kahn played the part of prosecutors condemning the U.S. and its role in the existing world order.

The main idea of the documentary was to be furthered by former Israeli and Pakistani leaders Shimon Peres and Pervez Musharraf, but it remained unclear what exactly they were supposed to be contributing.

Quite unexpectedly, Dmitry Peskov, the Russian president's press spokesperson, provided the most profound insight into the theory of international relations by talking about the Americans' failure to implement their strategy of "checked chaos" in the Middle East.

Anyway, savvy Russian viewers harbored no illusions: The expert opinion and documentary footage were auxiliaries meant to highlight and provide a quality media entourage for Putin's words. He was expected to make revelations, surprise with unorthodox judgments, and unveil the secrets of global diplomacy.

But this time, unlike in the interview with Andrei Kondrashov on Crimea, was not the time to open up. Putin did not give in to emotions, shared no radical opinions, and did not speak about the historical predetermination of the conflict with the West or something along those lines.

On the contrary, several times during the interview Putin intentionally softened the bitter anti-Western rhetoric of Solovyov's leading questions by saying, "No, invading Afghanistan was definitely a mistake on the part of the Soviet leadership"; "No, the U.S. did not just decide to put strategic nuclear weapons in Europe. They have had them there for a long time"; "No, our relationship with the West is not only confrontational, we are also partners," etc.

Next to Assange's and Stone's remarks, such responses made Putin look like a loyal representative of the global establishment whose discontent does not go beyond criticizing the excessive influence of the U.S. and who is generally hoping to work together with the West and its leaders.

It is hard to tell whether the authors intended to portray Putin as a wise and contemplative critic of the West, but ultimately that was the picture that they painted.

Telling contradictions

At the same time, Putin's ruminations on the sources of the international crisis exposed some obvious contradictions in his stance, and attentive viewers definitely picked up on that.

For example, when comparing American and Russian foreign policies, Putin claimed that Russia was acting more cautiously and carefully in accordance with the U.N. Charter. When explaining why that was the case, he referred to the economic and political might of the U.S. which, supposedly, let Washington act irresponsibly, like a bull in a china shop.

However, Putin did not say anything as to why Russia's foreign policy in 2014-2015 started to look more and more like its American counterpart, with the same unpredictable, spontaneous decisions, double standards with regards to international law, and military operations abroad. Does that mean that Russia's economic potential rivals that of the U.S. and now we can afford a firmer foreign policy?

Another contradiction surfaced when Putin started talking about the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Greater Syria (ISIS). Contrary to the officially proclaimed goals of the Russian military operation in Syria, the president stated that "the fight against ISIS is not the end point that everything is going to revolve around. The development of relations in this geopolitical battle has critical implications for the future."

In other words, Putin confirmed that Russia came to Syria not to destroy ISIS, but to uphold its geopolitical interests in the ongoing confrontation with other superpowers.

The documentary paid a lot of attention to disclosing and discrediting Europe's supposed vassalage to Washington. Putin expressed regret that Europe had very few independent politicians that could be reasoned with. Still, he indicated that he was confident that such state of affairs was not meant to last, and everything would change soon. As for Russia, it would not be fazed by sanctions or hold a grudge. It is always open for cooperation.

At the moment though, Putin does not believe that Europe can be a point of reference for the former republics of the U.S.S.R. For example, Ukrainians' options in Europe include nursing, garden work, and construction, while siding with Russia would translate into leading positions in aviation, microelectronics, and research. The president did not explain how this perspective correlates with the current sad state of Russian science and microelectronics.

Although World Order did not meet viewers' expectations, it gave several reasons to be optimistic. Judging by his carefully crafted image, Putin is not going to become another Napoleon or Alexander the Great.

His version of international relations sounds less like the ideas of a dictator or conqueror and more like the lectures of a high school disciplinarian. And that is one reason to be happy.

 [return to Contents]

 #5
BBC
December 28, 2015
Who runs Russia with Putin?
By Andrew Monaghan
Andrew Monaghan is a senior research fellow in the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House.

When Vladimir Putin first came to power, he was asked in an interview which of his colleagues he trusted most.

He named five people:
Nikolai Patrushev
Sergei Ivanov
Dmitry Medvedev
Alexei Kudrin
Igor Sechin

Fifteen years later, these men still form President Putin's core group and dominate the strategic heights of Russian government and big business:

Mr Patrushev was director of the FSB internal security service from 1999 until his appointment as Secretary of the Russian security council in 2008

Mr Ivanov has been Defence Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. Since 2011, he has been head of the presidential administration

Mr Medvedev was President from 2008-12, forming part of the ruling "tandem" with Mr Putin, and is now Prime Minister

Mr Kudrin, Finance Minister until 2011, no longer holds a formal position but still appears to offer advice to the president on financial and economic matters

Mr Sechin, who has held senior positions in the presidential administration and government, is chief executive of Rosneft, the state oil company

This core group illustrates two important points about who runs Russia.

First, there has been continuity in terms of the personnel closest to Mr Putin. Real reshuffles are rare, and very few have been evicted from this core group.

Second, the heart of the leadership team is made up of allies who served with Mr Putin in the KGB, in 1990s St Petersburg, or both.

This core group also includes others whom the president trusts to implement major infrastructure projects, such as Arkady Rotenberg, one of those responsible for the Sochi Winter Olympics, as well as several regional figures and senior bureaucrats.

Many of these figures held senior positions even before Mr Putin's rise to power.

Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, formerly Minister of Emergency Situations, was a prominent party political figure in the second half of the 1990s and leader of the United Russia party from 2001-05.

Such figures convene in the security council, one of the most important organisations for co-ordinating high-level decision-making and resources.

At the same time, the Russian administrative system - the so-called vertical of power - does not function well: policy instructions are often implemented tardily and sometimes not at all, so others have important roles helping develop and implement projects.

One such individual is Yuri Trutnev, elected as a regional governor in 2000, and then appointed Minister for Natural Resources and Ecology in 2004.

In 2013, he was promoted to Deputy Prime Minister and Presidential Plenipotentiary to the Russian Far Eastern Federal District, a high priority post for Mr Putin.

Russian observers also point to the role played by Vyacheslav Volodin in helping Mr Putin run Russian politics since 2011.

Mr Volodin rose through regional and then national party politics, before being appointed to government positions.

He established the influential All-Russian Popular Front in 2011, which makes an increasingly significant contribution to formulation, implementation and monitoring of the leadership's policies.

Mr Volodin was subsequently appointed First Deputy Head of the presidential administration, responsible for overseeing a "reset" of Russian domestic politics since 2012.
Alongside continuity in the core leadership team, there has been a growing need for effective managers to implement its policies.

Indeed, rather than shrinking, as some commentators have suggested, the leadership team appears to be expanding.

There are several rising stars who play increasingly important roles in party politics and administration.

One is 39-year-old Alexander Galushka, who is a member of the Popular Front and many of the president's and prime minister's advisory committees.

He was appointed Minister of the Far Eastern region in 2013.

This leads us to the final point about who runs Russia with Mr Putin - while the President is the central figure, he is part of a team, which itself is part of a system, and therefore highlights the importance of effectiveness in implementing tasks.

All the individuals have reputations for hard work, loyalty and proven effectiveness in completing difficult tasks in business, state administration and politics.

As one Russian close to Mr Putin has observed, he did not choose them for their pretty eyes, but because they get things done.

 #6
Russia Direct
www.russia-direct.org
December 28, 2015
The Russian media looks back at the dramatic events of 2015
Media Roundup: The most important events of the past week included controversial new currency exchange rules in Russia and the dismissal of a popular opposition politician.
By Anastasia Borik

The end of December is the time for reviewing the past year, and many Russian publications have done so as 2015 comes to an end. On the whole, they say that it has been a challenging year, and that the prospects for Russia in 2016 are highly uncertain.

Reviews of 2015

Slon, an independent online news portal, published its "Top 10 events of the year," which included Russia's military operations in Syria, the sharp fall in the price of oil and the Russian economic crisis, the still-unsolved murder of the opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, and many more. 2015 was "woven from fear, alarm and disappointment," concludes the portal's editors, underlining the dramatic nature of the year's events.

Moskovsky Komsomolets, a popular Moscow newspaper, reviewed the year in economics. The collapse in the ruble, the sanctions against Russia and low oil prices have created an extremely adverse economic climate, which will most likely continue into 2016. In this context, the main "complaint of the year" is addressed to the Russian government, which, according to the publication, has clearly not been coping with the mounting problems.

"In its current form, the government is not coping with its tasks," concludes the publication, citing leading Russian opposition politicians.

For Slava Toroshchina, a columnist for Novaya Gazeta, an opposition newspaper, the year's most significant developments were Russia's growing isolation on the international stage and the rise in propaganda and ideological crackdown domestically. In light of the economic crisis, the government is fighting increasingly openly against dissenting ideas, creating a mechanism of low-grade propaganda and portraying to the public an image of a prosperous country successful on the international stage that does not actually exist.

New currency exchange rules in Russia

On Dec. 27, new rules on exchanging currency in banks took effect in Russia. Anyone wanting to exchange an amount equal to just over $200 (or more) now has to provide various documents and complete a specially expanded questionnaire.

Officially, the new procedure is aimed at countering the financing of terrorism. The Russian media, however, have been talking of a return to the Soviet era, when there were severe restrictions on the movement of foreign currency.

Novaya Gazeta columnist Arnold Khachaturov reckons that the Central Bank's argument regarding countering the financing of terrorism is extremely weak: Any major foreign currency transactions already came to the attention of the relevant authorities, because they required a passport to carry out.

In addition, Khachaturov doubts that terrorists actually use retail banking channels for their purposes. He believes that the Central Bank sees the restrictions as a monetary policy tool aimed at reducing demand of foreign currency in the country, thus helping to shore up the ever-weakening ruble.

Moskovsky Komsomolets suggests that the government has finally decided to resort to an extreme method of making money from its citizens: shedding light on their undocumented income. It is tracking undocumented income in foreign currency that is the purpose of the Central Bank's measures, which could lead as early as next year to the introduction of a new income tax charge for a whole range of individuals. For everyone else, the newspaper stresses, nothing will change other than that bank queues will get even longer.

Kommersant, a business daily, cites various experts who have differing opinions on the new rules. Some say that there is nothing unusual about the restrictions, and that they really are aimed at increasing the transparency and security of Russia's banking system, while others see in them an attempt by the government to control every aspect of public life, taking the country back to the days of the 1990s and unofficial and black market currency exchanges.

Echo of Moscow, a radio station, has republished a piece by Anton Nossik, a blogger, on its web portal, which argues that the new restrictions are pointless. Nossik emphasizes that the new measures do not introduce any new tools for treating money laundered by criminals, because the Central Bank already knows everything about law-abiding citizens and terrorists are hardly likely to be using the services of retail banks in large numbers.

"The sole purpose of creating the new register of foreign currency transactions is to give the impression of increased vigilance and awareness in an area where it is already not possible to learn anything new," Nossik concludes.

The dismissal of opposition mayor Galina Shirshina

There have been further developments regarding the dismissal of the opposition mayor of Petrozavodsk, Galina Shirshina, which was mentioned in a recent review. On Dec. 25, the Petrozavodsk City Council voted by a majority to dismiss Shirshina on grounds of misconduct. This decision was no surprise, but there has been talk in the media about what the future holds for the opposition mayor.

Kommersant links her dismissal to her conflict with the regional authorities, and on a personal level with the regional governor, Aleksandr Hudilainen. The publication stresses that right from the start of Shirshina's term of office, the Karelian authorities have attempted to escalate their conflict with her, seeking to discredit her and remove her from office.

Ilya Azar, a special correspondent for Meduza, a liberal online news portal, attended the City Council meeting at which Shirshina was dismissed and interviewed the ex-mayor. In the conversation, Shirshina talks about her conflict with the regional authorities, on Hudilainen's subterfuges with the city's finances, and on the city's challenges and objectives that have and have not been met in the past two years.

"Petrozavodsk's bureaucrats never managed to accept the young and independent mayor in those two years," Azar concludes.

Vesti cites Russian experts and suggests that the conflict with the regional authorities could open up a path to federal politics for Shirshina, as the scandal has made her name known well beyond the boundaries of her native region. Preparations for the 2016 State Duma elections are in full swing, and the opposition forces might well make use of the popularity of the 'persecuted' politician. Furthermore, the term of office of the governor of Karelia, Mr. Hudilainen, expires in 2017, and Shirshina could rally the republic's opposition around her should she decide to send for the post.

Vsevolod Chaplin's dismissal

Another big departure this week was the release of the Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin from his position as Head of the Russian Orthodox Church's Department for the Cooperation of Church and Society. For the Russian Orthodox Church, Chaplin is a major and visible figure, well known not only in Church circles but also in the media.

Chaplin had been regarded as one of the main supporters of the current Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus', Kirill. Since the announcement of his dismissal, however, Chaplin has started an information campaign against the Patriarch, accusing the latter of being intolerant of ideas.

Moskovsky Komsomolets, citing experts, suggests that Chaplin's removal is connected with his statements to the media, which have not always met agreement with the Russian Orthodox Church. Chaplin was the main spokesman for the Church, but at some point he lost his connection with it and no longer thought it necessary to get approval for his statements. This annoyed not only the Patriarch himself, but also many of Chaplin's colleagues.

RBC, a business publication, quotes Chaplin on his disagreements with the Patriarch over Russia's presence in the Donbas region. Chaplin insisted that the Russian Orthodox Church should have a bigger presence there, and that it should be doing more to help the Russian-speaking population and Orthodox parishes. The Patriarch did not share this idea, and this could have been the starting point for the conflict between Father Vsevolod and Patriarch Kirill.

Another well-known figure in the Russian Orthodox Church, Andrey Kuraev, gave his views on Chaplin's dismissal to the popular website Gazeta.ru. Kuraev believes that the matter has nothing to do with Chaplin's statements, which by definition could not have been disagreed with by the Patriarch.

The problem was that the Church's position as set out by Chaplin has begun to make life more and more complicated for government institutions, including, in particular, the Foreign Ministry, which has had to offer excuses for Chaplin's statements on the "holy war against Islamic terrorism in Syria."

It was this dissatisfaction from the government authorities that was the real reason for Father Vsevolod's dismissal and replacement with the more moderate and pragmatic Vladimir Legoida.

Quotes of the week:

Aleksandr Bazykin, Managing Partner, Heads Consulting, on the new currency exchange rules: "Such measures are reminiscent of a witch-hunt. They will not prevent actual money laundering, but they will make life harder for banks and ordinary Russians. In recent times, people have often bought foreign currency for savings purposes. However, constantly having to explain the source of these small amounts will be very tiresome."

Galina Shirshina, on her conflict with the regional governor and her experience as a city mayor: "The person I was two years ago and the person I am now are two completely different people. And I have become even more dangerous for the governor and for the deputies. It might be impossible to put on over on me in the past, but now it is just not possible."

Vsevolod Chaplin, on the reasons for his departure: "Fewer and fewer people in our Church administration can argue with His Holiness... I believed that I was right to do so in previous years as well. And, unfortunately, this has become harder and harder... I expressed an opinion different from the opinion of the Holy Patriarch both in discussions and in correspondence."

 [return to Contents]

#7
AP
December 29, 2015
Russian investigators to indict 5 men for Nemtsov's murder

MOSCOW (AP) - Russian investigators are expected to indict five men with the murder of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, a brazen killing which sent shockwaves among the opposition earlier this year.

Nemtsov, a top opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin, was shot late at night on Feb. 27 as he was walking just outside the Kremlin. Five Chechen men have been arrested on charges of involvement in the killing, but it has remained unclear who ordered the attack.

The Investigative Committee, Russia's top investigative body, said in a statement that investigators would file the final indictment against the five men later on Tuesday. The committee said they are expecting the probe to wrap up in January.

The key suspect in Nemtsov's killing was a senior officer in the security forces of Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov while the organizer named by the investigators was a personal driver of senior commander and Kadyrov ally Ruslan Geremeyev.

Nemtsov's family has been petitioning investigators to look into Kadyrov's possible involvement in the murder as well as question Geremeyev who is believed to have fled Chechnya.

Vadim Prokhorov, lawyer for Nemtsov's family, told the Interfax news agency on Tuesday that Geremeyev's driver has been singled out as a scapegoat "in order to deflect the attention from Kadyrov's inner circle."

 [return to Contents]

 #8
Nemtsov murder case suspects to request jury trial - lawyer

MOSCOW. Dec 29 (Interfax) - The suspects in the case opened into the murder of Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov intend to ask for a jury trial, one of the lawyers has said.

"Our position remains unchanged: Zaur Dadayev pleads not guilty. We will request a jury trial," lawyer Shamshudin Tsakayev told Interfax on Tuesday.

The indictment says that the arrested suspects had lucrative motives, in other words they were hired to kill Nemtsov, he added.

Tsakayev told Interfax earlier on Tuesday that investigators had presented their final indictment to all persons arrested over the Nemtsov murder.

Nemtsov was assassinated on Bolshoi Moskvoretsky Bridge in central Moscow on February 27, 2015. The Russian Investigative Committee's Main Investigations Department is probing the criminal case opened on charges of murder and illegal weapons turnover.

Moscow's Basmanny District Court ruled to take five people implicated in the case, Zaur Dadayev, Anzor Gubashev, Khamzat Bakhayev, Shadid Gubashev and Temirlan Eskerkhanov, into custody.

Ruslan Mukhudinov, a member of the Sever (North) battalion of the Chechen Interior Ministry, has been charged with organizing the killing in absentia. The Basmanny Court arrested him in absentia on October 18 at investigators' request.

Russian Investigative Committee spokesman Vladimir Markin told Interfax earlier on Tuesday that investigators expected on Tuesday to file their final indictment against Zaur Dadayev, Anzor and Shadid Gubashev, Temirlan Eskerkhanov and Khamzat Bakhayev for perpetrating this contract killing acting as an organized group, as well as illegally obtaining, transporting and storing firearms.

[return to Contents] 

 
#9
www.rt.com
December 25, 2015
'No political motive in Nemtsov assassination' - investigators

A court in Moscow has agreed with law enforcers' claim that they have not discovered any possible ties between the killing of prominent opposition figure Boris Nemtsov and his political activities.

"In the course of the investigation we have positively established that the killing of Nemtsov was not in any way connected with his work as a state official, politician or public activist," Interfax quoted an investigator as saying at the Friday session of a Moscow district court.

The statement was made as the court looked into the request from Nemtsov's relatives to requalify the case from 'murder' to 'the murder of a state official.' Nemtsov's relatives said that at the moment of the killing the victim occupied a seat in the Yaroslavl regional legislature and was co-chairman of the opposition bloc Parnas. Previously, Nemtsov had been a member of parliament, deputy prime minister, and a regional governor.

Investigators told the court that according to the law, in order for the case to be requalified to the murder of a state official, the killing must have put an end to some official state function, which had not happened with Nemtsov.

The court agreed with the investigators and ruled not to satisfy the relatives' request to requalify the case into the murder of a state official.

Boris Nemtsov was shot dead while crossing the Bolshoy Moskvoretsky bridge, near the Moscow Kremlin, in February this year. The assassination prompted a thousands-strong march in the Russian capital, with demands to find and punish the killers.
President Putin personally promised in a public address that everything would be done to punish those responsible for the organization and execution of the murder.

In March, Russian law enforcers arrested five suspects in case, including two suspected hit men. One of them, Zaur Dadaev, has reportedly confessed his involvement in the murder and said it was revenge for Nemtsov's "negative comments on Muslims and Islam."

However, in subsequent developments, Dadaev insisted on his innocence and said he had taken the blame to save someone close to him. The other four suspects also denied any guilt.

The term of the preliminary investigation into the Nemtsov case expires on February 28, 2016. Russian mass media expect the probe to be completed in the last days of 2015 or at the very beginning of the coming year.

 [return to Contents] 

 
#10
Vedomosti
December 24, 2015
Experts see more risks than positive news for Russia's economy in 2016
Olga Kuvshinova: Oil. War. Protests. Crisis. Experts Name Risks for Russia's Economy in 2016. They Proved to be Far More Numerous than Probable Positive Surprises

Vedomosti asked economists to describe the main risks and also opportunities that the incoming year of 2016 could bring for the Russian economy, in their opinion. These are not scenarios or forecasts but a search for and assessment of the trends that are shaping up and the events which will have the maximum influence on the situation in Russia, if they happen. (For detailed answers see www.vedomosti.ru).

The main external risk is the continuation of a low oil price (35-40 dollars a barrel) for much of the year or a further fall. Against this backdrop all the remaining factors influencing our economy simply pale, Oleg Kuzmin from Renaissance Capital believes. Cheap oil will keep the economy in recession for a further year, Vladimir Osakovskiy from Bank of America Merrill Lynch is sure. Yevgeniy Nadorshin from PF Capital explains that it will keep it in a deep and prolonged recession. A dip in the oil price below 40 dollars a barrel will trigger a new wave of adjustments to all the economic agents unless there is a rapid rebound: unemployment will rise and consumption will continue to fall, he says, listing them.

The next oil shock could already be approaching, Tatyana Orlova from Royal Bank of Scotland fears. The near halving of oil prices in 2015 could very well be repeated in 2016 as well - the price will fall to 20-25 dollars a barrel, Yevgeniy Gavrilenkov from Sberbank CIB argues: "The problem is that no one knows where the bottom is." Such uncertainty will cause more harm than prices themselves.

With low oil [prices] and a preservation of sanctions the investment crisis will continue, Natalya Akindinova from the Higher School of Economics Centre for Development believes. The consequences of the crisis of confidence are the postponement of investment projects, a capital outflow, the dollarization of the assets of enterprises, banks, and the population, a leap in the exchange rate and inflation, and a squeeze on the economy, Dmitriy Belousov from the Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting Centre says.

Geopolitics is another "black swan," experts point out.

The economy will remain hostage to it [geopolitics], Vladimir Tikhomirov from BKS states. Belousov does not rule out that new geopolitical risks can be added to the old ones: A major Asian war that drags Russia into a protracted and costly ground campaign.

Internal risks

For the economy it is not the external risks themselves that present more threats but the authorities' reaction to them, Dmitriy Polevoy from ING believes. An unpreparedness to pursue a constructive anti-crisis policy could spill over into a more prolonged crisis, Nadorshin warns.

The population will react increasingly sensitively to a continuing fall in incomes and restrictions on economic and personal freedoms, Polevoy believes. The year's main risks are connected with an increase in social tension in the regions, Aleksey Pogorelov from Credit Suisse believes. And depending on the results of the parliamentary elections it is not ruled out that there will be a repeat of the 2011 political crisis only this time deepened by an economic slump, Olga Sterina from Uralsib concedes.

The crisis is intensifying the protest vote, which could increase the systemic opposition's weight (the non-systemic opposition will hardly be given a chance to participate in the elections), Polevoy argues. The social effect of the crisis could lead to the voters' large-scale disillusionment with United Russia and to the formation of a red Duma - a significant increase in the representation of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation in parliament, Belousov suggests. On the one hand this can tighten the Duma's control over budget expenditure and the work of the state corporations and on the other intensify dirigisme in economic policy.

As usual the authorities will try to reduce social tension by means of budget support, according to Pogorelov, who expects an increase in the budget deficit. The use of the reserves, in their turn, creates economic and political risks, Yevsey Gurvich from the Economic Expert Group points out.

The default of one or two regions because of a reduction in incomes set against the preservation of expenditure commitments could trigger a chain reaction and create pressure on the banks, Yevgeniy Koshelev from Rosbank points out.

In the budget sphere the government will have to employ all the measures - administrative, privatization, and maximum economy - and theoretically this could be a positive phenomenon capable of leading business out of the shadows and increasing the effectiveness of budget spending but in practice this should hardly be expected, Gurvich believes. A positive effect is possible if the measures are well thought out and are accompanied by reforms but the government does not have time for this, he notes. The risks come from domestic laws and the application of the law and inertia has already built up here, Akindinova adds.

The internal risks are not so significant when viewed against the backdrop of oil, sanctions, and geopolitics, Tikhomirov disagrees, but in the long-term it is specifically domestic policy that is the main factor holding economic growth back. The low competitiveness of the economy, the large share of the state sector, monopolization, the poorly developed financial sector, corruption and the ineffectiveness of management, and the weak protection of property rights - all these things have prevented and will continue to prevent the economy from growing.

The absence of a reaction to external shocks which have already become customary is also a risk, Akindinova notes: "The economy has grown accustomed to being constantly shaken and retains some stability but this stability is a besieged fortress." The economy is becoming archaic and undergoing a "monstrous simplification," Yuliya Tseplyayeva from the Sberbank TsMI [Macroeconomic Research Centre] says in alarm.

"White Swans"

Unlike the long list of risks, just two potential pleasant surprises for the economy have been found: an increase in oil prices and the lifting of sanctions, experts point out. Both the former and the latter are not ruled out but are unlikely.

It would be positive if the authorities developed a sense of the danger of further economic stagnation and began structural reforms, Tseplyayeva believes: Because of the uncertainty of economic policy it is impossible to build plans for the future. Long-term uncertainty will do more harm than the low oil price and the absence of access to technologies because of the sanctions, Natalya Orlova from Alfa-bank agrees: no predictability means no possibility of calculating the investment risks. It would be good if the authorities elaborated a strategy for the country's development for at least 10 years ahead, she says: "What kind of economy do we want to be? There is no consensus, there are not even any discussions. We will continue to drift."

 [return to Contents] 

 #11
Moscow Times
December 26, 2015
8 Shades of Crisis - Russia's Year of Economic Nightmares
By Peter Hobson
[Charts here http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/8-shades-of-crisis---russias-year-of-economic-nightmares/553703.html]

Imagine Russia as a combustion engine. Oil and gas pumped from its vast territories wash through the economy as taxes, government spending and investment. Foreign currency from oil and gas sales is used to fund imported equipment and products on shop shelves. Cash from the energy industry flows through companies and into pay packets. Whether directly or indirectly, Russians have oil money in their pockets.

So while on the face of it, the energy industry accounts for only around one-quarter of Russian output, in reality it is the source of up to 70 percent of Russia's gross domestic product, according to research by Andrei Movchan, an associate at the Carnegie Center in Moscow.

That helps explain how, in the late 1980s, a halving in the price of oil precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The current shock engulfing Russia is even more serious, Deputy Finance Minister Maxim Oreshkin told a conference hosted by Vedomosti, a business newspaper, in December.

Russia's isolation from the world economy due to sanctions imposed over Moscow's actions in Ukraine last year have worsened the impact of an oil price crash.

The Moscow Times looked at eight aspects of the crisis.

Oil

If the oil price falls to $50 per barrel it would cost Russia some $160 billion in lost annual exports, Oreshkin said. By mid-December, the price of oil had fallen not to $50, but to less than $40, following a collapse of the market last year amid chronic global oversupply.

Russia's response was to maximize output, raising oil production to its highest since the end of the Soviet Union and ramping up exports of gas and metals, prices of which have also fallen sharply.

This strategy has brought in extra money and preserved jobs, helping the country weather an economic contraction of around 4 percent this year. But it also undermined the future development of Russia's oil industry.

To maintain production volumes, oil companies are tapping easy-to-reach resources and neglecting investment in deposits that are harder to access, said Mikhail Krutikhin, a partner at consultants RusEnergy.

In the longer run, Russian oil output - which currently rivals Saudi Arabia at more than 10 million barrels per day - will decline sharply.

Sanctions

One of the reasons for the long-term decline in oil production is ongoing Western sanctions. Imposed last year, sanctions have deprived the oil industry of technology and expertise and sharply curbed lending by Western financial institutions to Russia.

This has forced Russian companies and banks to repay loans to foreigners rather than refinance them. Corporate external debt will drop to less than $500 billion by the end of the year from $660 billion in mid-2014, according to the Central Bank - the equivalent of sending around 9 percent of Russia's 2014 GDP over the border.

In the long run, reducing debt will leave Russia's finances in better health, said Chris Weafer, a senior partner at Moscow-based consultancy Macro Advisory.

But, he added, it is "a very narrow silver lining wrapped around a very dark cloud."

The Ruble

Russia has been able to cope with lower oil prices and sanctions by allowing the market to massively devalue the ruble, which has lost half its value against the U.S. dollar since summer 2014, when oil prices began to fall.

Non-interference in the ruble rate enabled the Central Bank to preserve its foreign currency reserves, which were at $371 billion in early December, rather than spend them to defend the currency.

Also, since oil and other commodities are sold in dollars, energy companies and the government earned more rubles for every dollar's worth of oil sold, offsetting the effect of the price fall and allowing the government to run a deficit of around 3 percent without borrowing or massive cuts to spending.

The weak ruble transformed Russia's trade balance, since anything brought from outside the country suddenly became far more expensive. According to official customs data, the value of imports fell by 38 percent in the first 10 months of the year.

This was another boon to the state, creating an expected current account surplus of more than $60 billion this year to help balance capital outflows and repayments to foreign creditors.

Other side effects of the devaluation were less positive.

Inflation

The ruble's collapse has caused prices to spiral. Inflation remained above 15 percent throughout 2015. Food prices rose even faster, as a consequence of bans imposed by Moscow on produce from the U.S., European Union and some other countries in retaliation to sanctions.

Inflation far exceeded wage growth, and real incomes began to fall at levels unprecedented since the 1990s. Household spending dropped by around 9 percent, according to the Central Bank, undermining a key driver of economic growth.

Meanwhile, 2.3 million more people fell into poverty in the first 9 months of the year, according to the Rosstat state statistics service. The creation of a middle class - a key development of President Vladimir Putin's reign - stalled.

Interest Rates

To keep inflation in check, the Central Bank kept interest rates high. Following an emergency hike to 17 percent last year, the bank's key rate has fallen to 11 percent.

This has raised borrowing costs and dampened investment. Already in short supply as oil wealth and foreign credit dried up, investment has fallen by around 5.5 percent in the first 10 months of the year, according to Rosstat.

High lending rates have come on top of Russia's old problems of corruption, red tape and rapacious officials - none of which have been effectively reformed. In an interview in October on state television's Channel One, Economic Development Minister Alexei Ulyukayev said there was no investment because there was no trust in Russian institutions or the country's future.

"Right now," he said, "you have to be a brave, even crazily brave person to open a business."

Import Replacement

The weak ruble should have boosted local production to replace more expensive foreign goods.

One industry that did expand was agriculture, where import bans and government calls for self-sufficiency for national security reasons gave extra impetus to ramp up production.

As other sectors of the economy shrank, "agriculture is demonstrating positive dynamics, with an at least 3 percent growth," Putin said at a press conference in December.

But the speed of change and the lack of competition have often come at the cost of quality. Many local products now on sale are substandard, and the dairy industry is rife with cheap palm oil supplements.  

With Turkey and Ukraine recently added to the list of countries whose products have been banned, Russia could face food shortfalls of fruits and vegetables next year, the Central Bank warned in a December report.

Unemployment

Despite the recession, unemployment has stayed low, at around 5.5 percent. Companies and government bodies have preserved jobs by cutting pay and hours. Migrant workers, who are easier to fire and whose remittances have shrunk as the ruble has weakened, have left in droves, reducing the supply of labor.

Between January and early December, the number of Tajik citizens in Russia fell by around 100,000, or 10 percent, and the number of Uzbeks declined by more than 330,000, or 15 percent, according to Federal Migration Service data.

These factors have acted as a shock absorber for the labor market. "In another country unemployment would be in double digits," said Weafer.

Discontent?

Putin's support remains high. State television, through which most Russians get their news, has convinced the public that external factors, or anti-Russian conspiracies, are behind the economic slump.

But people are increasingly feeling the crisis. A survey by state pollster VTsIOM in December found that people's assessment of their wealth fell sharply at the end of the year. A quarter of respondents said their family finances were in a bad state.

In late 2014, Putin said oil prices under $80 would "destroy the global economy."

Both the global and the Russian economy have proven more resilient. But if oil prices stay low, the recession will continue throughout next year and an extended investment slump will stunt Russia's long term growth prospects.

Russia will enter its longest period of falling incomes and quality of life since the economic crisis that doomed the Soviet Union. Ahead of presidential elections in 2018, poverty, which more than halved during Putin's first 13 years in power, will be back with a vengeance.

 [return to Contents] 

 #12
Russian minister admits high ruble volatility leads to big economic problems

MOSCOW, December 29. /TASS/. High volatility of the currency has led to big problems in the Russian Economy, not exchange rate values, Economic Development Minister Alexey Ulyukayev said Tuesday in an interview with Rossiya 24 TV channel.

"It's not so much the high or low value of the currency or that the dollar is worth 30 or 70 rubles, it's the high volatility of the currency that is the problem," Ulyukayev said.

Ulyukayev added that Russian companies "are not always able to adapt" to such high volatility, because "dependence on imported raw materials, on imported components is high."

"Many banks value access to the global capital markets, debt refinancing for borrowers is hindered. All this led to big problems," the Minister said. "The good news is that the Russian economy, the Russian business showed ability to adapt," Ulyukayev concluded.

 [return to Contents] 

 #13
www.rt.com
December 28, 2015
Saudi Arabia responsible for oil market destabilization - Russian energy minister

Saudi Arabia has destabilized the crude market while increasing its oil output by 1.5 million barrels a day, said Russia's Energy Minister Aleksandr Novak.
"This year Saudi Arabia has ramped up production by 1.5 million barrels per day, which in fact destabilized the situation on the market," Novak told Rossiya 24 TV channel.

According to him, the balance of oil supply and demand could be achieved in 2016. Iran's return to the global energy market could also affect oil prices, Novak added.

Earlier this month, OPEC decided not to cut output, it left 'de facto' production unchanged at 31.5 million barrels per day (bpd). The previous official output ceiling was 30 million bpd, but OPEC was already pumping more than that.

The cartel's output hit a three-year high in July at 31.5 million barrels per day (bpd) following OPEC kingpin Saudi Arabia's output increase. The kingdom then refuted media reports it was pumping more to compensate for lower prices.

Despite the perpetual appeals to reduce output and support oil prices, OPEC has been refusing to do so as the organization is trying to maintain its market share. Saudi Arabia has been the main opposition to production cuts.

The group of 12 OPEC countries accounts for about 40 percent of the world's crude production.

 [return to Contents] 

 #14
CNBC.com
December 28, 2015
'Too early' for optimism on Russia growth: Analyst
By Kalyeena Makortoff    

Russia's economy contracted 4 percent in the year to November, highlighting continued trouble for the country despite claims that its economic crisis has peaked.

The number is worse than the October gross domestic product (GDP) figure, which showed a 3.7 percent decline from a year earlier.

It comes just weeks after Russian President Vladimir Putin told reporters that the economy had generally overcome "the peak of the crisis" and was starting to stabilize.

Chris Weafer, a senior partner at Macro-Advisory, told CNBC that November GDP was worse than expected, with many economists predicting a smaller contraction of 3.6 percent.

He said weak consumer trends - dragged down by a near 10 percent drop in real wages and high debt repayment costs - were to blame. Retail sales were down 13 percent from a year earlier last month, compared to a 8 percent decline in the first half of 2015.

"The November data shows that it is far too early to be optimistic that the worst is over for the economy; it certainly is not for the beleaguered consumer," he told CNBC via email.

Weafer predicts the economy is likely to stay in recession until at least the middle of 2016, but said that growth after that point would depend in part on whether consumer and business confidence trends can be reversed, whether oil prices can recover, and whether Western sanctions on the country's financial sector are eased.

Economic sanctions linked to Russia's involvement in Ukraine have compounded the pains of plummeting crude prices, both of which have put pressure on the ruble and sent inflation soaring to 15 percent - contrary to the deflationary effects low oil prices have had on most importers of the commodity.

While the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts the Russian economy will contract 3.8 percent this year, Weafer says that the November GDP figure suggests the full-year decline for 2015 could be closer to 4 percent.

"At minimum, in terms of the economy, it looks like this winter will be every bit as tough as last year's," he said.

 [return to Contents] 

 #15
Russia Beyond the Headlines
www.rbth.ru
December 28, 2015
Press Digest: Is West responsible for Russia's 2015 economic malaise?
RBTH presents a selection of views from leading Russian media on international events, featuring a review of how Russia coped economically in 2015, as well as reports on a New Year concert given for Russian servicemen at the Khmeinim air base in Syria and the introduction of a contactless payment scheme at Moscow's newest metro station.
By Anna Sorokin

2015: The year the West expanded its economic siege of Russia

The Svobodnaya Pressa news and commentary website reviews the outgoing year, which was overshadowed economically by the confrontation between Russia and the West.

First, the Standard & Poor's, Moody's, and Fitch ratings agencies downgraded Russia's ratings. As a result, Russia's costs for servicing foreign debt have increased, while investors have largely lost interest in Russian securities.

In response, Russian gas giant Gazprom announced that by 2020 it would give up Ukraine as a transit route for its gas supplies to Europe completely and would establish transit supplies via the Turkish Stream pipeline under the Black Sea. Europe was left to urgently resolve the issue of how to transport gas from the Greek border.

However, by July it became clear that the strategy of bypassing Ukraine via the southern route was not working: Gazprom announced that the potential capacity of the Turkish Stream pipeline would be halved. A month later, the European Commission openly declared that it would resist any of Gazprom's projects aimed to stop gas transit via Ukraine.

In July, following the news that Tehran and the P5+1 group had reached a comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, oil prices began to fall dramatically.

This delivered a serious blow to the Russian budget and significantly devalued the ruble.

Throughout the year, the EU and the U.S. several times expanded or extended their sanctions against Russia (imposed over Russia's role in the 2014 Ukraine crisis - RBTH). In response, Russia extended its ban on food imports from the U.S., Canada, Norway, Australia and EU countries for another year and added Albania, Montenegro, Iceland, Lichtenstein, and Ukraine to the ban.  

"External factors have quite a significant part to play in the situation which the Russian economy finds itself in," said the head of finance and economy section at the Institute of Contemporary Development, Nikita Maslennikov.

"The key role, of course, belongs to falling oil prices and the end of the whole commodities cycle in the world economy.

"If we look at the overall economic outcome of all the external factors - commodities prices and the sanctions - this year Russia has been short-changed of, according to experts' estimates, some $200 billion, or 1-1.5 percent of potential GDP growth," said Maslennikov.

"What does it mean? In 2015, our economy will most likely drop by 3.9 percent of GDP. Only 1.5 percent of that amount is in fact generated by the effect of external shocks.

"So it is logical to wonder: Had none of this happened, had oil prices not fallen and had the West not imposed the sanctions, would we be in a crisis or not? It turns out that yes, we would. Because the above figures show that the main causes of the economic slowdown in Russia are created not by external but by internal factors."

New Year concert for Russian military in Syria

Russian artists have been flown to the Khmeimim airbase in Latakia, Syria to give a New Year concert for the Russian military personnel serving there, news website Gazeta.ru reports. According to the artists, the event was not commercial - they were flown to the base on board a special Defense Ministry aircraft, and they felt under no danger at the base, writes Gazeta.ru

Many of the artists who took part in the concert preferred not to publicize their trip to Syria, but there were those who decided to go public with it, like singer Zara for example.

"It was a great honor for me to perform for our officers and servicemen. I admire, and I think the whole country does too, their daily heroism for the sake of fighting the terrorist threat so that it does not reach our borders. And of course I wished them a safe return home to their families and a happy New Year. And I told them that we are very proud of them," said Zara.

At the same time, according to singer Ruslan Alekhno "there were many those who refused to go."

"I am very proud of our servicemen. I cannot even imagine what would happen if the terrorist plague reaches civilians and our children, who live, enjoy life and look into the future. And all this is possible thanks to our military," he said.

Contactless payment available at new Moscow metro station

The Moscow Metro's newest station, called Tekhnopark, was opened on Dec. 28 as part of a pilot scheme. It is fitted with a contactless payment system, reports daily tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda. All you have to do is touch your Visa bank card to the turnstile and it will let you through, having charged the standard fee for a single journey (50 rubles) from your bank account.

Similar technology will soon be installed at several other stations, including Marksistskaya on the yellow line.

 [return to Contents] 

 #16
Forbes.com
December 28, 2015
Russia's Ex-FinMin Says Putin Wrong On Economy
By Kenneth Rapoza

Russian President Vladimir Putin likes to boast about how well his country has handled sanctions and the massive decline in oil prices. While life at the bottom, economically speaking, is something Russians have grown accustomed to, investors may need some convincing that Russia has turned the corner. Former Finance Minister, Alexei Kudrin, says it has not.  

Contrary to official opinion in Moscow, Russia's economy has not finished bottoming out, says ex-Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin.

"We are seeing some further deterioration in November economic data," he told Interfax on Monday. "To me, this means that the situation is unstable. When you add the sharp decline in oil prices...it makes for an unstable environment. If (oil) prices remain at this level for another six months or a year, we will see the continued fall of the Russian economy."

Last week Russia approved its 2016 budget based on oil prices of $50 per barrel. But oil is already trading below $40 a barrel, suggesting the Russian parliament will have to take another look at the numbers at some point next year.

Russian economic data remained negative in November, for the most part. However, the declines are becoming less sharp than they were a few months ago. Record oil exports for Russia, one of the world's cheapest producers, are helping produce trade surpluses. But the government is already working on the idea that next year will see more money leaving Russia than coming in.

One of the positives in the Russian economy is inflation. It is coming off highs of nearly 16% and expected to fall to 7% next year. That will give the Russian Central Bank room to cut interest rates, and - in theory - get companies investing again. Many Russian firms have not been tapping credit markets because of the combination of sanctions and high interest rates.

"These high rates of loans increase risks in a number of industries and hurt employment, hurt earnings," Kudrin said, adding that he thinks there is a risk that Russian banks will be faced with increasing numbers of non-performing loans.

"The situation is not very good. It can get worse," he said.

Russia's third quarter data showed a 0.6% quarterly contraction, according to the Federal State Statistics Service. For those looking through the wreckage for something shiny, the decline was much better than the 1.3 % quarterly drop in the second. That caused some investment firms to call a bottom in September. Sberbank was one of them.

Economic Development Minister Alexei Ulyukayev doubts there will be deeper declines, but he is not convinced there will be numbers above zero anytime soon.  Russia "growth" is still negative.

He said Russia won't see a return to growth until 2017-18 if oil prices remain under $40. They are currently $37.

Forecasts by the Russian Central Bank, World Bank and International Monetary Fund suggest a continuation of the recession next year if oil is between $50 and $53.

It is clear that there will be no rapid post-crisis recovery in Russia. Investors will have to be of the mind that -1% is better than -3%.  According to Ulyukayev, if Russia does not carry out structural and institutional changes  - two of the Kremlin's favorite "to do list" items - then a healthier economy grows by 1.5% to maximum 2% annually, which puts Russian GDP growth below the world average.

 [return to Contents] 

 
#17
Valdai Discussion Club
http://valdaiclub.com
December 28, 2015
RUSSIA'S NEW FRONTIERS IN ECONOMIC ALLIANCES: KEEPING OPTIONS OPEN
By Yaroslav Lissovolik
Yaroslav Lissovolik is professor of international economics at the Diplomatic academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.

Throughout the past several months Russia's authorities have issued a flurry of important statements on the priorities of Russia's economic alliances in the world economy.

In particular, Russia's President Vladimir Putin called for building economic alliances between the Eurasian Economic Union, members of the Shanghai Organization for Cooperation as well as ASEAN countries. Earlier, in November the First Deputy Head of the Russian Government Igor Shuvalov declared that Russia together with its partners in the Eurasian Economic Union would seek to forge a trade alliance on the basis of an FTA with Singapore. The overall vector in the formation of these alliances points towards Asia and likely signals rising activism on the part of Russia in building its network of integration blocks.

To some degree this delineation of foreign economic policy priorities may be seen as a response to the recent breakthroughs attained by the US in creating such formidable trade alliances as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in a region that is the most dynamic not only in terms of economic growth, but also in terms of the scale of formation of trade blocks. The creation of TPP as well as the likely subsequent emergence of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) leaves both Russia and China outside of this combination of megablocks, which is fraught with losses in terms trade and investment flows. According to Petri and Plummer study (2012) among the countries left outside of TPP China will sustain the greatest losses, while other countries vulnerable to future losses from trade diversion include India and Russia.

In this respect, Russia's choice of the Shanghai Organization for Cooperation (SOC) as one of the key trajectories in developing economic alliances is particularly noteworthy as it points to the importance of India and China as key allies in developing a new set of alliances that could counterbalance megablocks such as the TPP. Indeed, a look at the membership of SOC reveals precisely the set of countries in Eurasia that is largely left outside of the TPP and that may sustain losses from being excluded from the formation of US-led megablocks. The preference accorded in Putin's recent statements to SOC rather than BRICS (which could have also featured in the set of integration priorities) likely reflects greater emphasis on the part of Russia in spearheading its economic integration efforts towards Eurasia. Another important conclusion is that SOC may take on greater economic importance going forward, which could render this organization as a platform for closer trade and investment integration among its members.

The decision to also focus on ASEAN is understandable, given the headway attained in forming an FTA between the Eurasian Economic Union and Vietnam. A successful progression towards an even deeper and more comprehensive alliance with Singapore would go a long way towards strengthening Russia's position in South-East Asia. The creation of an FTA with Singapore will likely test new ground in Russia's efforts to develop bilateral economic alliances across the globe as this agreement is likely to focus more on issues of "deep integration", with a particular emphasis on sectors such as services and mutual investment flows. Alliances with key ASEAN countries could also facilitate greater cooperation on the part of Russia with the rest of the ASEAN block as well as with other trade blocks in the Pacific, including TPP, which includes Vietnam and Singapore as its members.

As a result, Russia's multi-track approach to building alliances seems to be aimed at securing optionality in response to the pressures and risks emanating from the global economy. While SOC may feature as an alternative track to pursuing economic integration in order to counterbalance TPP, closer cooperation with ASEAN may be exploited to forge stronger links with TPP. Keeping all options open seems to be a good strategy - the main issue is for the key goals to be reached amid the multiplicity of integration projects emerging in the Eurasian space.

 [return to Contents] 

 #18
Interfax
December 28, 2015
Lavrov reveals the key Russian diplomacy task in 2015

The main objective of Russia's foreign policy in 2015 was to secure the country's leading role in the fight against terrorism; the actions of the Russian aviation group in Syria helped clear the situation in this regard, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.

"The key objective of Russian diplomatic efforts was to secure the leading role of our country in mobilizing the international repulsion of terrorist aggression and form a broad antiterrorist front," Lavrov said in an interview with Interfax.

"Decisive actions of the Russian Aerospace Forces at the request of the Syrian government helped withstand the onslaught of the militants," he added.

"The picture of events became considerably clearer as a result and now we can see who actually fights extremists and who acts as their abettor, trying to use them for their own selfish purposes, unleashing, like Turkey, a stab in the back of those who confront the terrorist threat," Lavrov said.

"Russia acted actively and with good dynamics, trying to rise to responsibility for the course of events in the world, as one of the largest countries, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council," he said.

"We have been steadily proceeding from the notion that terrorism cannot be defeated by military means only; this fight must be accompanied by a political solution to the conflict situations, with facilitating economic rehabilitation of the affected countries, with an opposition to extremist ideology."

"Our approaches contributed to the launch of the so-called 'Vienna process' on the facilitation of the political settlement in Syria with participation of all countries capable of making a tangible contribution to these efforts," Lavrov added.

"We believe that finding solutions to the most difficult problems of modern times is only possible on the basis of international law, the principles of equality, mutual respect and consideration of mutual interests, through paying tribute to the cultural and civilizational diversity in the modern world and the right of nations to independently choose their destiny," Lavrov said.

 [return to Contents] 

 #19
Russia Direct
www.russia-direct.org
December 28, 2015
US-Russia-relations in 2015: From confrontation to limited cooperation
As 2015 comes to an end, Russia Direct reviews the 10 most important events influencing U.S.-Russia relations over the past 12 months.
By Pavel Koshkin and Andrei Korobkov
Pavel Koshkin is Executive Editor of Russia Direct and a contributing writer to Russia Beyond The Headlines (RBTH). He also contributed to a number of Russian and foreign media outlets, including Russia Profile, Kommersant and the Moscow bureau of the BBC. Andrei Korobkov is a professor of Political Science at Middle Tennessee State University. He graduated from Moscow State University and received a Ph. D. in Economics from the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow, Russia) and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Alabama.

The dynamics of U.S.-Russia relations changed dramatically in 2015 as part of a major shift in global international relations that occurred throughout the year.

Just compare the situation now to where we were just one year ago. In 2014, the triumphant Sochi Winter Olympic Games were followed by Ukraine's Euromaidan protests, the coup in Kiev, Russia's annexation of Crimea, and the beginning of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Simultaneously, U.S.-Russia relations, as well as Russia's rapport with the West in general, were deteriorating fast.

Although all these negative events passed onto this year, the global situation and U.S.-Russia relations in particular are now vastly different. In 2015, one can observe the tendency towards shifting from full-on confrontation to partial, but limited, cooperation. So what issues can be deemed the most significant for bilateral relations?

1. Russian military campaign in Syria

The beginning of the Russian military operation in Syria quickly changed the balance of power in the Middle East and the perception of Russia's role in global politics.

Apart from that, Moscow's actions, including the refusal to give up the President of Syria Bashar al-Assad, reflect Russia's attempts to challenge America's leadership and make people inside the U.S. question the effectiveness of Washington's policies in the Middle East.

On the other hand, the Kremlin's involvement in the Syrian conflict pushed the U.S. to take Russia's position into account and try to restore partial cooperation, at least in the areas where Moscow and Washington see eye to eye, such as the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Greater Syria (ISIS) and peace and stability in the Middle East.

Recent meetings of Russian and American diplomats, such as the meeting of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his American colleague Barack Obama at the G20 Summit and Paris Conference on Climate Change, support this claim.

On the other hand, Russian participation in the Syrian conflict resulted in Turkey downing a Russian Su-24 bomber. The U.S. adopted a rather ambiguous stance regarding this incident, which further complicated bilateral relations.

2. John Kerry's diplomatic visits to Russia

The U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's visits to Russia in 2015 are extremely important and give a reason to be cautiously optimistic, even though they cannot have a dramatic positive effect and overcome the present stalemate situation.

If nothing else, they manifest that both parties are trying to keep the dialogue going and maintain the channels of communication for the discussion of such issues as Syria and global terrorism. First, Kerry officially visited Sochi in May and then came to Moscow in the beginning of December. The resolution of the Syrian conflict has been one of the main items on the agenda of the U.S. leadership and diplomatic corps.
 
Clearly, the U.S. and Russia are both interested in working together: at his news conference, Putin repeatedly stated that Russia was interested in and, most importantly, ready for dialogue and cooperation. It is important to point out that, following Kerry's visit to Moscow, Putin's rhetoric did not feature anti-American overtones, which is definitely a good sign.   

All these developments do not quite signify a breakthrough in bilateral relations, but are unequivocally welcome changes for the better.

3. Obama's and Putin's speeches at the 70th UN General Assembly

Putin's September visit to New York to attend the 70th UN General Assembly was very important, marking the first time in ten years that the Russian leader had come to speak at the UN General Assembly and his first full-fledged meeting with Obama since the start of the Ukrainian crisis.

However, Putin's UN visit proved that Moscow and Washington are still in a mode of deep confrontation. It clearly demonstrated that Russian and American leaders have failed to understand each other and this problem has still not been resolved despite the fact that Russia seems to have succeeded in persuading the West to see it as a key global player after the start of the Syrian campaign.

Likewise, Kerry's visit to Moscow has not become a significant game-changer. The obvious lack of personal chemistry and understanding between Obama and Putin at the UN General Assembly turned into an exercise in mutual finger-pointing and persistent attempts to promote their own positions. And this trend continues to persist heading into 2016.

4. The beginning of the U.S. presidential election campaign

2015 marked the start of the U.S. election campaign, which brought on a spike of criticism towards Russia. This time both Republican and Democratic primaries have a few of candidates competing in the reach of their promises to "punish" Russia.

Nonetheless, the current campaign has another atypical trait, which is the candidates' strong disapproval of American policies in Syria and suggestions on re-starting relations with Russia. From this perspective, Donald Trump, the billionaire Republican presidential candidate, occupies a special place in the development of bilateral relations.

He sharply criticizes U.S. policies in Syria, calls for a reevaluation of al-Assad's regime, and speaks highly of Putin, which definitely affects American public opinion.

He also influences other candidates (for example, Ted Cruz) who also start questioning the feasibility of American actions in the region. It is hardly surprising that the Russian leadership is genuinely interested in the outcome of the American election campaign. Putin openly demonstrates that he is favoring Trump. The benefits of such support may be rather questionable for the candidate, but it is quite remarkable anyway.

5. The law on undesirable organizations and the approval of a patriotic stop-list in Russia

In May, Putin signed the so-called Law on Undesirable Organizations, which targets foreign organizations in Russia. Both human rights activists and heads of some non-government organization (NGOs) saw the law as an attempt to clamp down on the activity of certain groups.

Moreover, the Russian authorities announced an initiative that could produce a chilling effect on foreign NGOs in Russia: the so-called "patriotic stop-list" of undesirable organizations proposed by the head of the Federation Council, Konstantin Kosachev, former head of Russia's agency on soft power.

The list included primarily Western organizations from the U.S. and Europe, including Freedom House, Open Society (the Soros Foundation), National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and even the MacArthur Foundation, a prominent U.S. nonprofit that provides support to young researchers and activists.

Following the adoption of the "patriotic stop list" for foreign NGOs and the adoption of the law on foreign "undesirables," the Kremlin officially banned NED, a Washington-based NGO mostly funded by the U.S. Congress.
 
In late November, the Kremlin's campaign against organizations deemed "undesirable" gained momentum. On Nov. 30, Russia's Prosecutor General updated the list of undesirable organizations to include the Soros Foundation, which used to operate in 30 countries worldwide. According to the Russian authorities, the organization undermined the foundations of the Russian constitutional system.

Clearly, this act does nothing to improve bilateral relations. The increasingly negative attitude towards many NGOs that are working with the West, as well as labeling them "undesirable" or plainly shutting them down, reduces the room for cooperation and casts a major blow to public activities, including research and humanitarian missions. Such actions lead to the escalation of tensions within the Russian society and the authorities' further crackdown on its opponents.

6.  ISIS threat in Russia, Europe and the U.S.

ISIS claimed responsibility for a series of terrorist attacks in Russia, Europe and the U.S., and that seemed to have made a difference in Russia-U.S. relations.

The crash of the Russian plane in Egypt, the terrorist attacks in Paris, and the new threat of ISIS attacks on American soil are linked, and Putin and Obama definitely see that.

While experts do not believe that an anti-ISIS coalition will be formed and Moscow and Washington will be fully cooperating on the fight against global terrorism, the very understanding of the gravity of the threat may serve as a reason for partial, albeit limited cooperation.

7. The closure of the American Center in Moscow

Another blow to bilateral relations was dealt in September when the Kremlin's decided to shut down the American Center at the Russian State Library of Foreign Literature in Moscow. Even though officially it was a simple matter of passing the control of the Center over to the Library, the Center was de facto closed and had to move to the U.S. Embassy where it is now working on its cultural and educational programs.

"This happened after 22 years of the Center working in the sphere of bilateral cultural exchanges and shortly after the death of Ekaterina Genieva, a famous librarian and cultural critic, as well as former president of George Soros' Open Society Institute in Russia, who did her best as the director of the Library to prevent this move," wrote Victoria Zhuravleva, a professor of the Russian State University for the Humanities with extensive experience in working with the American Center in Moscow.

"Since 1993, the American Center has been promoting U.S history and culture. It organized cultural and educational events and gave the floor to many American academics, politicians of different political affiliations, actors and writers," she added.

However, even after the Center was shut down some state-owned TV channels would not leave it alone. Pro-Kremlin NTV aired a conspiracy report about U.S. exchange program graduates gathering at the U.S. Embassy's American Center to meet with the U.S. Ambassador. Reporters called it a "secret" meeting.

Obviously, such approach harms Russia-U.S. relations and undermine the relationship of the two countries. In spite of Putin's proclaimed desire to work together with the U.S., such strategy is not likely to facilitate a friendly dialogue.

8. A multilateral agreement on Iran's nuclear program

The agreement on Iran's nuclear program also plays an important part in the relationship between Russia and the U.S. It proves yet again that diplomacy actually works.

The agreement improved U.S.-Iran relations and allowed for backroom negotiations on joint operations in Syria and Iran. The deal could not but influence U.S. relations with Russia as well, especially since the latter brought a lot to the table.

The agreement may have a positive influence on the region, but it can also make oil prices plummet on the global markets, and that would be a grave economic problem for Russia. However, it is not likely to have an adverse effect on bilateral relations.

9. The signing of the second Minsk Agreements by the Normandy Four

The agreement on implementing the set of measures for the fulfillment of the Minsk Agreements was effected on Feb. 2015. It aimed to de-escalate the military conflict in Eastern Ukraine and was signed by the leaders of Germany, France, Ukraine, and Russia under the Normandy format and the contact group made of representatives of Ukraine, Russia, and the unrecognized Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics.

The signing of the agreement also influenced U.S.-Russia relations in the context of the Ukrainian conflict. Even though there were no breakthroughs, the conclusion of agreements and confirmation of the parties' positions was important for the de-escalation in Donbas and, consequently, in relations between Russia and the U.S.

At the same time, the implementation of the second Minsk Agreements exposed major (albeit currently contained) differences in the E.U. and U.S. approaches to resolving the Ukrainian crisis and further conduct towards Russia, which, in turn, heightened the criticism of Russia for failure to fulfill the terms of the agreement and had a negative impact on the relations between the U.S. and Russia.

10. Extension and widening of U.S. sanctions against Russia

In the second half of December, a week after Kerry's visit to Moscow, the U.S. Department of the Treasury broadened the sanctions against Russia for its stance on Ukraine. The new list features 34 individuals and legal entities that, according to the U.S., "facilitated Russia's interference in Ukraine."

Although the U.S. Department of the Treasury emphasized that it was elaborating as opposed to strengthening sanctions, the Russian authorities are of a different opinion and promise an analogous response. This course of action also does nothing to improve the relations between the two countries.
Looking ahead to 2016

2015 marked the return of Russia and Vladimir Putin to the global political arena. Unfortunately, it was not easy for Moscow. To a great extent, the return was facilitated by the escalation of global tensions and the need to come together against the forces that are a threat to all. It is possible that ISIS will create a new type of totalitarian regime, and the world remembers too well the price it paid for defeating its 20th century predecessor.

The fight against international terrorism and environmental and economic problems urgently requires intensive global cooperation and the exchange of information. Still, this past year keeps reminding us that the resolution of international issues is greatly influenced by internal political struggles, the legislation of a given country and ambitions of actual politicians.

Thus, it is necessary to consider the possibility of direct provocations perpetrated by ambitious and irresponsible third-world leaders striving to drive a wedge between Russia and the U.S. The events that led to the Russian-Georgian war in 2008, the downing of the Malaysian plane over Ukraine in 2014, and Turkey's shooting down the Russian bomber all serve as serious reminders that the threat is real.

Therefore, the return to regular dialog and stepping up bilateral cooperation should be seen by both Russian and American politicians as an investment into national security.

 [return to Contents] 

#20
http://pepperspectives.blogspot.com
December 23, 2015
PRESERVING CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT
By John Pepper
I spent a 39-year career at Procter & Gamble where I served in various roles as President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman from 1986-2003. I served as Chairman of the Board of the Walt Disney Company from January 2007 to March 2012.

Ian Kershaw's magisterial new history of Europe, 1914-1949,"To Hell and Back" reminds us that during the 40 year period from 1914 to 1945 Europe came close to "self-destruction" in two World Wars and an economic depression that cost over 50 million lives.

Yet, defying centuries of internecine warfare and history, Europe came together in the second half of the 20th Century to form organizational constructs (NATO, ECM, etc.) that make the prospect of another war between the European nations inconceivable.Yes, tensions still exist: economically and socially. And will continue to. But the common interests were so clear and the bonds now so strong that war is not conceivable.

Today, in the early years of the 21st Century, I believe our civilization faces a question not dissimilar to what was faced in the 20th Century: "will we allow civilization and the world as we know it and want it to be, to self-destruct?"

This may strike the reader as a needlessly draconian question. I do not think it is.

What are the risks to our civilization as we know it? I believe there are three.

One is the threat of fundamentalist driven terrorism seeking to expand its reach across borders and annihilate "non-believers"  via a new caliphate.

The second is the threat of nuclear disaster. Let us not allow the half century which separates us from the first hand ravage of the hydrogen bomb to disguise the annihilation to civilization which will result from atomic warfare. To our knowledge, we are the only celestial body with life as we know it. The possibility of our ending it is in our hands.

The first and second threats are related for a dooms-day scenario is having a nuclear device in the hands of terrorists.

The third threat, while less immediate is no less real: climate change which would cripple life as we know it on earth.

It is clear that confronting and curtailing these threats will require Nations to work together as they have not before. Without trying to identify an exhaustive list, these Nations must include the United States, Russia, China, Western Europe, Japan,
Saudi Arabia, and  India.

There are those who will object to Russia and China being included, attributing to these Nations the intent to expand their geographic reach. The evidence that this is their intent is frail, defies what their leaders assert and what is in their own best interest.

Neither China or Russia are driven today by a Mission which seeks to convert other Nations to a given ideology (unlike Germany under the Nazis or ISIS today). Neither have a need for more land. Like the United States and Western Europe, they are threatened by ISIS. Yes, their values, their economic and judicial systems will not be identical to ours. Corruption may exist at higher levels. And they will look for good relations with neighboring countries just as we in the United States always have with countries near our own.

But the commonalities of their interests--preserving peace and safety for their citizens, being treated with respect--will be far greater than the differences.

Just as world leaders following WW II had the wisdom to bring together organizational coalitions to normalize cooperation and the creation of stronger bonds so must the world leaders do that today.

With regard to Russia, we had the opportunity to create an organizational construct which would have bound its interests to those of the West post glasnost and perestroika in the early 1990's. We missed that opportunity. We have the opportunity again, confronted by the greatest threats we have had since that of Nazi Germany in the 20th Century.

Today's leaders will be judged by how well they seize this opportunity. I believe the future of civilization as we know it depends on it.

 [return to Contents] 

 #21
Russia Beyond the Headlines/Gazeta.ru
www.rbth.ru
December 28, 2015
Russia's political achievements in Syria eclipse modest military success
While Russia can say that it has accomplished the primary political goals of its "Syrian gambit," its military campaign has not brought the desired breakthrough. In trying to achieve a settlement to the situation in Syria, the participating countries will encounter very difficult, practically insurmountable problems.
By Vladimir Frolov
Vladimir Frolov is an international relations expert.

On Dec. 18 the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution delineating the main contours of the political resolution of the conflict in Syria. And though the text does not contain any breakthrough ideas, the fact of the unanimous decision alone reflects the key players' new determination to end Syria's internal conflict.

The focus on the regulation process is definitely related to the results of Russia's military campaign in Syria in 2015, as well as to the challenges that we will face in 2016.

It is clear that the primary political goals of the "Syrian gambit" can be considered accomplished. The regional ally who was on the brink of military defeat has been saved, the threat of an armed overthrow of Bashar al-Assad has been removed and the military balance of strength is now in his favor.

The diplomatic blockade that Washington had been building against Russia since 2014 is now lifted. Strategic dialogue with the U.S., which was not simple to renew, is on a high level and its agenda is no longer limited to Ukraine. Moscow has been able to impose itself as a partner who is well equipped and prepared for decisive action in the fight against a global threat.

On equal terms

The most important sign of success was the convergence of Russian and American interests, which took place during U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's recent visit to Moscow, in providing joint solutions to the most serious international problems. The Kremlin has every reason to be happy with the results of Kerry's visit.

The talks were held according to a Russian-American model that Moscow had been promoting unsuccessfully for a long time, the model of geopolitical parity: two superpowers, which more than anyone else are responsible for global security, discussing - confidentially, tête-à-tête - the most pressing issues, making joint decisions and then mobilizing other countries within the UN Security Council framework to support them.

Obviously for Washington this is still only an instrumental approach, limited to Syria and the fight against Islamic State (ISIS), but relations have to begin somewhere.

There has been no "reset," and one is not expected. However, Moscow no longer needs it. The format of "situational but equal partnership" suits it more.

In Moscow, Kerry did not stop repeating that the U.S. and Russia must work together to solve the various international problems and when they do so, as in the case of the talks on the Iranian nuclear program, things in the world improve. And they will improve even more after cooperation on Syria and the joint fight against ISIS.

Kerry even said that the U.S. is not pursuing regime change in Syria. Moscow could not but praise such a correction in America's rhetoric and agreed to the ministerial meeting of the international contact group on Syria in New York on Dec. 18, even though just two days earlier it had thought the meeting would be premature.

This is the new format and the "new form" - a respectful confrontation.

Military success appears more modest

After three months of bombing we are back to basically where we were at the beginning of October, while the campaign's finish line is still beyond the horizon. The condition and combat capacity of the Syrian army and the "Iranian allies" are worse than were expected. The "liberation of territory" can be measured in kilometers. Damage has been done to the militants' infrastructure but there has been no turnaround.

The Iranians have experienced horrible losses and are now reducing their land contingent. The Syrian army has serious problems with personnel. The number of victims among civilians is increasing and consequently so is the terrorist threat for Russia.

Moscow must now make a decision. It can continue "practicing," as Russian President Vladimir Putin said during the press conference, supporting the status quo and prolonging the war, which fortunately has not brought about significant losses and costs for Russia. Cynical as this may sound, tactically such a choice may even be more advantageous, since the continuation of the war prolongs "Russia's usefulness" to the West as a partner.

Russia can also strive for a full military victory by increasing its forces. But the "cost" could soon become extreme as a result of one large-scale terrorist act or the militants breaking into the Russian base in Syria, or as a result of a Turkish ground invasion to protect its supply channels to the insurgents.

Or, all energies can be directed along the diplomatic route and try, from an already strong position, to stop the war in dignified conditions. This is what will be the main challenge in 2016.

Quick success cannot be counted on. The sequence of steps and the timeframe stipulated in the UN Security Council resolution are too ambitious. The negotiation process will take up much more time than the planned six months. For now the main players have decided not to concentrate on their differences concerning the separate aspects of the resolution of the crisis, leaving them to be resolved at a later stage.

The main question that has been postponed is whether or not President Assad will participate in Syria's new government. Everyone except the Syrian opposition has agreed that Assad will remain in power during the transition period. The UN Security Council resolution does not say anything on this issue since Moscow would never have consented to a document indicating that the decision to remove the president of a sovereign country should be made outside the country. But this incertitude in itself is a form of compromise that allows the process to move ahead.

First published in Russian in Gazeta.ru

 [return to Contents] 

 #22
Valdai Discussion Club
December 25, 2015
MAPPING THE WAY OUT OF THE SYRIAN CRISIS
By Veniamin Popov
Veniamin Popov is Director of the Center for the Partnership of Civilizations, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO).

The US has decided to seriously consider Russia's proposal to tighten control over the funding of ISIS and other terrorist groups and to interrupt their supply routes, primarily the illegal oil trade.

On December 18, the UN Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 2254, which includes a roadmap for a peaceful process in Syria. The absence of dissention is not just a major achievement in the common fight against terrorism but is also evidence of the rapprochement of Russian and US positions on this crucial international issue.

This resolution provides a legal framework for practical efforts to settle the Syrian crisis. However we are not out of the woods yet. It, therefore, is of key importance to faithfully comply with the agreements reached.

Russia has been acting consistently for the past five years, saying that the main threat to international peace and security comes from the cutthroats of ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorist groups. It also said that the Syrian settlement should be based on the Geneva Communique of June 30, 2012.

The efforts of the International Syria Support Group, which coordinated the main principles for the Syrian settlement at its meetings in Vienna on October 30 and November 14, have resulted in the drafting of the UN Security Council's roadmap for the peace process in Syria. According to its main provision, the Syrian people will decide the future of Syria. The UN Secretary-General's Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, has been issued a clear mandate to start preparing a meeting between the Syrian government and the opposition "on an urgent basis." However, many issues have yet to be addressed, such as the criteria for identifying who the terrorist groups are, in order to prevent those who have endangered the lives of civilians and carried out terrorist attacks from sitting down at the negotiating table.

Opinions also differ on the role of President Bashar al-Assad after the creation of a transition government in Syria. But all the 18 countries of the Support Group have agreed that Syria should remain a united, secular, multiconfessional, and multiethnic state, comfortable and safe for all groups that make up its population.

There are three core reasons behind the gradual change in Western attitudes.

The first is the Russian air raids that began on September 30, 2015 (and we need to openly admit this) including also the use of Russia's latest weapons against ISIS.

The second is the flow of refugees pouring into Europe, which has provoked serious quarrels in the European Union that Brussels has yet to settle.

And the third reason is the formidable threat of Islamic terrorism, about which Moscow constantly warned the international community. Regular terrorist attacks in the Middle Eastern countries, the bomb that destroyed a Russian passenger liner over the Sinai, the terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015 and the ISIS attack on Americans in San Bernardino, California, all proved the threat had become real.

The general mood is also changing in the US. A growing number of Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls have called for joining forces with Russia against international terrorism and for creating a broad international coalition for this fight. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has urged this more than once, and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has recently expressed her support for Trump. Another Democratic candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont has said: "We have got to get our foreign policy and our priorities right. It is not Assad who is attacking the United States - it is ISIS."

For the past few months, US officials kept up the mantra that they are for a Syria without al-Assad. But when Secretary of State John Kerry addressed the media after his meeting with President Vladimir Putin on December 15, he said for the first time that the US wanted to see Syria without ISIS.

It's notable that the US has decided to seriously consider Russia's proposal to tighten control over the funding of ISIS and other terrorist groups and to interrupt their supply routes, primarily the illegal oil trade. The UN Security Council has adopted a resolution to this effect, and US aircraft now join Russia's jets in the bombing of ISIS oil trucks headed for Turkey.

The US administration has supported the proposal to seal the Turkish-Syrian border as soon as possible. We hope that eventually the US will also accept Russia's proposal for closer military coordination between Russia, the US and the international community to enhance their practical efforts in the fight against terrorists in Syria and Iraq.

History shows us that it's best when Moscow and Washington act jointly with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, as evidenced by the liquidation of chemical weapons in Syria in 2013, the prevention of an all-out war in Syria later that year, and the convening of the Geneva conference on Syria.

Most political analysts have noticed that continued Russian-US cooperation in Syria would enable the international community to strike a mortal blow against the Islamist monster known as ISIS (or Daesh) and other terrorist groups.

In this rising multipolar world, the best way to deal with major international issues is to address them collectively based on respect for the interests of the parties concerned, as it was done to find a solution to Iran's nuclear issue.

This is the only option if we really want to settle conflicts and make this world safer, and not a place of uncontrollable chaos.

 [return to Contents] 

 #23
The Unz Review
www.unz.com
December 26, 2015
Week Twelve of the Russian Intervention in Syria: Zag!
By The Saker

In last week's review of the Russian military intervention in Syria I wrote that Kerry had lost every single negotiation he ever had with the Russians and that he had a record of agreeing to A only to come back to the US and then declare non-A. This time again, the Americans did not change their modus operandi, except that it was Obama himself who declared, yet again, that Assad must go, resulting in some commentators speaking of a "White House Schizophrenia". Others, however, noted that this could be simply a case of face saving denials. Personally, I think that both of these explanations are correct.

There is no doubt that Obama is an exceptionally weak, and even clueless, President. The man has proven to have no vision, no understanding of international relations, his culture is minimal while his arrogance appears to be infinite - he is all about form over substance. This is the ideal mix to win a Presidential election in the USA, but once in the White House this is also a recipe for disaster. When such a non-entity is placed at the top of the Executive branch of government, the different part of government do not get a clear message of what the policy is and, as a result, they each begin doing their own thing without worrying too much about what the POTUS has to say. The recent article by Sy Hersh "Military to Military" is a good illustration of that phenomenon. Being weak and lacking vision (or even understanding) Obama's main concern is conceal his limitations and he therefore falls back on the oldest of political tricks: he tells his audience whatever it wants to hear. Exactly the sames goes for Kerry too. Both of these man will say one thing to the Russian rulers or during an interview with a Russian journalist, and the exact opposite to an American reporter. That kind of "schizophrenia" is perfectly normal, especially in the USA.

To use the expression coined by Chris Hedges, the USA is an "Empire of Illusion". The US society has an apparently infinite tolerance for the fake as long as the fake looks vaguely similar to the real thing. This is true on all levels, ranging from the food Americans eat, to the way they entertain themselves, to the politicians they elect and to the putative invincibility of the armed forces their taxes pay for. It is all one gigantic lie, but who cares as long as it is a fun, emotionally reassuring lie. In the Syrian context, this ability to ignore reality results in the support of terrorism in the name democracy, the conduct of an "anti-Daesh" campaign which results in Daesh dramatically increase its territory, the accusation that Assad used chemical weapons and now the "Assad can stay but he must go" policy. This ability to completely decouple rhetoric and reality can sometimes have a positive side-effect. For example, even if this week saw a Zag! From the US Administration in terms of rhetoric, this does not necessarily mean that the USA will continue to attempt to overthrow Assad. The opposite is also true, however. The fact that the US has said that Assad can stay in no way implies that the US will stop trying to overthrow him.

The bottom line is this: yes, there was definitely a Zag! this week, but only time will tell how much of a zag we are dealing with.

In this context I highly recommend the recent article by Alexander Mercouris entitled "Russian diplomacy achieved a trio of Security Council Resolutions over the last month which give Russia a decisive advantage" in which he explains how Russia has achieved victory after victory at the UN Security Council. What is important here is that with each of these Russian-sponsored Resolutions the number of available options for the USA are gradually reduced. Another factor also reducing the US options are all the tactical successes of the Syrian military whose progress is slow, but steady. The intensive pace of Russian airstrikes is having an effect on Daesh and the Syrians are slowly advancing on all fronts. There has been no Daesh collapse yet, but if the Syrians continue to advance as they have done so far their offensive will eventually reach a critical point when the quantity of their small (tactical) victories will end up triggering a qualitative (operational) reaction and Daesh will begin to collapse. Of course, the Daesh fighters will have the option of finding safety in Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and elsewhere, but the psychological impact of a Daesh defeat in Syria will be huge.

So far there are no signs of a possible Turkish invasion of northern Syria, no signs that anybody is still thinking about imposing a no-fly zone, and besides the murder of Samir Kuntar in an Israeli airstrike (which I discussed here), it appears that the S-400s are achieving the desired deterrent effect.

In other words, while US leaders have their heads stuck deep up into their own delusions, the events on the ground are slowly but steadily reinforcing the Russian position and vindicating Russia's stance.

In the meantime, the Syrian Christians who follow the Gregorian Calendar are celebrating Christmas in the streets of Latakia in a clear sign that a multi-confessional Syria still exists and has a future.

 [return to Contents] 

 #24
http://gordonhahn.com
December 27, 2015
Putin's Syria Intervention Decisionmaking in Light of New Revelations
By Gordon M. Hahn

In September I wrote that Russian President had several reasons for intervening in Syria militarily: (1) protecting the interests of its Syrian ally in the form of Presidant Bashad Assad either by keeping his regime in place or shaping a transition; (2) preserving Russia's  influence in the Levant, especially in light of Russia's historical ties to Orthodox Christian communities there; (3) defeating the global jihadi revolutionary movement and its North Caucasus allies fighting in the Levant and at home; and (4) demonstrating Russia's status not just as a regional power but as a global one as well (http://gordonhahn.com/2015/09/10/putins-arab-gambit-just-got-more-bold-the-syrialevant-jihadi-crisis/).

Recently, a series of revelations have revealed that Putin's decision was also influenced by the fecklessness of the Barack Obama administration's destructive policy in the fight against the global jihad and the Islamic State. I will disclose other details and a more broad analysis soon, but for now I will discuss the implications of revelations contained in Seymour Hersh's recent article in the London Review of Books.

Hersh reveals from a Pentagon source that "overt opposition" among "some of the most senior officers on the Pentagon's Joint Staff" to Obama's policy of supplying weapons to Syria's 'moderate' rebels. Their opposition, even subversion of Obama's policy is "focused on what they see as the administration's fixation on Assad's primary ally, Vladimir Putin."

The military's "resistance" dated back to the summer of 2013, when a highly classified all-source assessment, prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), concluded that the Assad regime's fall would lead to chaos and a potential takeover of Syria by jihadi extremists. It criticized "the Obama administration's insistence on continuing to finance and arm the so-called moderate rebel groups" and the CIA's "conspiring for more than a year with allies in the UK, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to ship guns and goods - to be used for the overthrow of Assad - from Libya, via Turkey, into Syria." In addition, Turkey was acting as "a major impediment" to Obama's policy and had "co-opted" a covert US programme to "arm and support" the "moderate rebels," fighting Assad, transforming the programme "into an across-the-board technical, arms and logistical programme for all of the opposition, including Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State." Thus, the "moderates had evaporated," "the Free Syrian Army was a rump group stationed at an airbase in Turkey" and, as a result, "the US was arming extremists." The assessment and other DIA reporting received enormous pushback from the Obama administration." The JCS understood "that a direct challenge to Obama's policy would have 'had a zero chance of success,'" according to Hersh's source, and so in the autumn of 2013 it decided to move against the extremists in Syria without the administration's approval and funnel US intelligence on Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS to the militaries of other states, including "Germany, Israel and Russia,"  which were in contact with Assad's army (Seymour M. Hersh, "Military to Military: US intelligence sharing in the Syrian war," London Review of Books, www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military).

If Hersh's source is reporting accurately, then it is very likely that the U.S. military contact with Moscow, the evidence of grave dissent within the administration that this interaction represented, and the nature of the intel provided to the Russian military influenced Putin's decision to intervene in several ways. First, these factors would have definitively confirmed for Putin the fecklessness of the Obama administration in general, given its full alienation of, and its inability to control the military. Second, they would have shown Moscow that little could be expected from U.S. efforts to contain IS and the other jihadists in Syria and elsewhere along the southern Eurasian arc of Islamic states stretching along Russia's south. Third, they demonstrated to the Kremlin that there would be elements within the Obama administration that might eventually force it to come to terms to any Russian military intervention in Syria. Fourth, these factors as well as the specific nature of the intelligence itself must have suggested to Putin that Russian operations and intelligence subsequently received during operations could be used to expose the pathetic nature of the U.S. administration and its policies, further undermining American hegemony and allowing Russia to seize the mantle or some of the status as the global power fighting the global jihadi revolutionary movement effectively. One might recall that after Moscow began its military intervention, the Russians requested and Putin reiterated the request in a television interview, that the U.S. provide it intelligence so it could hit IS targets, which the Obama administration and the Defense Department were saying Russian warplanes were not attacking. This would have been a rather clever gambit, given that the Pentagon had already been doing this, either to acquire more intelligence or to rub Pentagon's face in its hapless position under Obama's rule.

AS I will demonstrate shortly, Hersh's reporting largely coincides with the contents of recently released DIA documents, and the Obama administration's insistence on arming Muslim rebels, provoking Putin in Ukraine, and refusing to join forces with Moscow in the fight against the global jihad correlate nicely with the friends from the Muslim world that the Obama administration keeps.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gordon M. Hahn is an Analyst and Advisory Board Member of the Geostrategic Forecasting Corporation, Chicago, Illinois; Adjunct Professor and Senior Researcher, Middlebury Institute for International Studies at Monterey; Senior Researcher, Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group, San Jose, California; a Contributor for Russia Direct, www.russia-direct.org; and an Analyst/Consultant, Russia Other Points of View - Russia Media Watch, http://www.russiaotherpointsofview.com. Dr Hahn is author of three well-received books, Russia's Revolution From Above (Transaction, 2002), Russia's Islamic Threat (Yale University Press, 2007), which was named an outstanding title of 2007 by Choice magazine, and The 'Caucasus Emirate' Mujahedin: Global Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland Publishers, 2014). He also has authored hundreds of articles in scholarly journals and other publications on Russian, Eurasian and international politics. Dr. Hahn has taught Russian politics and other courses at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, St. Petersburg State (Russia), and San Francisco State Universities as well as the Middlebury Institute for International Studies at Monterey, California. He also has been a Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (2011-2013) and a Visiting Scholar at both the Hoover Institution and the Kennan Institute.

 [return to Contents] 

 #25
Reuters
December 28, 2015
U.S. sees bearable costs, key goals met for Russia in Syria so far
WASHINGTON | By Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel

Three months into his military intervention in Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin has achieved his central goal of stabilizing the Assad government and, with the costs relatively low, could sustain military operations at this level for years, U.S. officials and military analysts say.

That assessment comes despite public assertions by President Barack Obama and top aides that Putin has embarked on an ill-conceived mission in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that it will struggle to afford and that will likely fail.

"I think it's indisputable that the Assad regime, with Russian military support, is probably in a safer position than it was," said a senior administration official, who requested anonymity. Five other U.S. officials interviewed by Reuters concurred with the view that the Russian mission has been mostly successful so far and is facing relatively low costs.

The U.S. officials stressed that Putin could face serious problems the longer his involvement in the more than four-year-old civil war drags on.

Yet since its campaign began on Sept. 30, Russia has suffered minimal casualties and, despite domestic fiscal woes, is handily covering the operation's cost, which analysts estimate at $1-2 billion a year. The war is being funded from Russia's regular annual defense budget of about $54 billion, a U.S. intelligence official said.

The expense, analysts and officials said, is being kept in check by plummeting oil prices that, while hurting Russia's overall economy, has helped its defense budget stretch further by reducing the costs of fueling aircraft and ships. It has also been able to tap a stockpile of conventional bombs dating to the Soviet era.

Putin has said his intervention is aimed at stabilizing the Assad government and helping it fight the Islamic State group, though Western officials and Syrian opposition groups say its air strikes mostly have targeted moderate rebels.

Russia's Syrian and Iranian partners have made few major territorial gains.

Yet Putin's intervention has halted the opposition's momentum, allowing pro-Assad forces to take the offensive. Prior to Russia's military action, U.S. and Western officials said, Assad's government looked increasingly threatened.

Rather than pushing back the opposition, Russia may be settling for defending Assad's grip on key population centers that include the heartland of his minority Alawite sect, said the U.S. intelligence official.

Russia is taking advantage of the operation to test new weapons in battlefield conditions and integrate them into its tactics, the intelligence official said. It is refining its use of unarmed surveillance drones, the official added.

"The Russians didn't go blindly into this," said the U.S. intelligence official, adding that they "are getting some benefit out of the cost."

Russia's intervention also appears to have strengthened its hand at the negotiating table. In recent weeks, Washington has engaged more closely with Russia in seeking a settlement to the war and backed off a demand for the immediate departure of Assad as part of any political transition.

Obama has suggested as recently as this month that Moscow is being sucked into a foreign venture that will drain its resources and bog down its military.

"An attempt by Russia and Iran to prop up Assad and try to pacify the population is just going to get them stuck in a quagmire and it won't work," Obama said on Oct. 2.

On Dec. 1, he raised the prospect of Russia becoming "bogged down in an inconclusive and paralyzing civil conflict."

The senior administration official denied any contradiction between Obama's statements and private assessments that Russia's campaign has been relatively effective so far.

"I think the president's point has been...it's not going to succeed in the long run," the official said. The Russians "have become bound up in a civil war in a way that's going to be extremely difficult to extricate themselves from."

U.S. officials have not publicly defined what a quagmire would look like for Russia. But Obama has raised the Soviet Union's disastrous decade-long Afghanistan occupation from 1979.

U.S. officials said Russia's military footprint is relatively light. It comprises a long-time naval facility in Tartus, a major air base near the port city of Latakia, a second under expansion near Homs and several lesser posts.

There are an estimated 5,000 Russian personnel in Syria, including pilots, ground crews, intelligence personnel, security units protecting the Russian bases and advisers to the Syrian government forces.

Russia has lost an airliner to an Islamic State-claimed attack over Egypt that killed 224 people, and an Su-24 supersonic bomber shot down by Turkey. It is also allied with an exhausted Syrian army that is suffering manpower shortages and facing U.S.-backed rebels using anti-tank missiles.

"It's been a grind," said the intelligence official, adding that in terms of ground gains, "I think the Russians are not where they expected to be."

Russian casualties in Syria have been relatively minimal, officially put at three dead. U.S. officials estimate that Russia may have suffered as many as 30 casualties overall.

Vasily Kashin, a Moscow-based analyst, said the war is not financially stressing Russia.

"All the available data shows us that the current level of military effort is completely insignificant for the Russian economy and Russian budget," said Kashin, of the Center for Analyses of Strategies and Technologies.

"It can be carried on at the same level year after year after year," he said.

 [return to Contents] 

 #26
Ericmargolis.com
December 27, 2015
RETRO COLD WAR GUFF FROM THE NY TIMES
By Eric Margolis
Eric S. Margolis is an award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune the Los Angeles Times, Times of London, the Gulf Times, the Khaleej Times, Nation - Pakistan, Hurriyet, - Turkey, Sun Times Malaysia and other news sites in Asia.

A striking example of how dangerously Americans are misinformed and misled by the war party was featured in a major article in 24 December, New York Times.
In "Russia Rearms for a New Era," the authors assert Russian military spending is growing and has risen $11 billion from 2014 to 2015. Lurid maps and diagrams of weapons make it seem that Stalin's 210-division Red Army is again on the march - and headed into Europe.

A professor at Columbia's Harriman Institute was actually quoted claiming that President Vladimir Putin is trying to "provoke the US and NATO into military action" to bolster his popularity.

What unbelievable rubbish. This dimwitted lady believes that Putin, whose popularity ratings rise over 82% in Russia, needs to court nuclear war to gain a few more points? Shame on the NY Times.

Let's look at the true figures. The US so-called "defense budget"(it should be called "offense budget") is in the range of $600 billion, 37% of total world military spending by a nation that only 5% of world population.

Some studies put the true figure at $700 billion.

Not included in this figure are "black" projects, a lot of handouts to foreign military forces, and secret slush funds for waging small wars in Afghanistan, the Mideast, Africa and Asia. The US has over 700 military bases around the globe, with new ones opening all the time.

The US spends more on its armed forces than the next nine military powers - combined. America's wealthy allies in Europe and Japan add important power to America's global military domination.

Russia defense spending is roughly $70 billion, and this in spite of plunging oil prices and US-led sanctions. France and Britain each spend almost as much; Saudi Arabia spends more. A French admiral ruefully told me the US Navy's budget alone exceeded that of France's total armed forces.

Russia is a vast nation with very difficult geography that limits its different military regions from supporting one another - a problem from which Russia has suffered since its 1904 war with Japan. Moscow needs large, often redundant armed forces to cover its immensity. This includes the warming Arctic, where Russia, like other coastal nations, is asserting its sovereignty. And Russia must also keep a watchful eye on neighboring China.

The Kremlin's view is that America is trying to tear down what's left of the post-Soviet Russian Federation by subversion (see regime changes in Georgia, Ukraine) and by stirring up Muslim independence movements in the Caucasus and Central Asia. That's why Russian military forces are fighting in Syria.

After the total collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia's economy and its once potent military fell to ruin. For two decades, Russia military was starved of men and money, and allowed to rust. Putin has been playing catch-up for the past decade to rebuild his nation's great power status and defend against what Russians see a constant western plots.

Memories are still raw of how Russia's most secret military technologies were sold to the US during the ultra-corrupt Yeltsin era.

Russia's relatively modest military budget is hardly a threat to the mighty United States. In fact, the only real Russia threat we face is the danger of blundering into a potential nuclear confrontation with Russia in Ukraine, the Black Sea, Syria or Iraq. Great, nuclear-armed powers should never...repeat, never...engage in direct confrontations.

It appalls and mystifies me that otherwise smart, world-wise people at the NY Times and the anti-Russian Council on Foreign Relations would even contemplate military conflict with Russia - for what? Mariupol Ukraine or Idlib, Syria, places no one has ever heard of.

We have been closer to blundering into nuclear war with Russia than any time since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Or worse, 1983, when a NATO military exercise codenamed Able Archer was misinterpreted by the Soviet military as an incoming attack by NATO.

This ultimately terrifying crisis was played against the background of intense anti-Soviet propaganda by the West, crowned by Ronald Reagan's fulminations against the "Evil Empire," which convinced the Kremlin a western attack was coming. Nuclear war was just averted thanks to a few courageous officers in the Soviet Air Defense Command.

 [return to Contents] 

 #27
Washington Post
December 29, 2015
Iran ships uranium to Russia, fulfilling a key provision of nuclear deal
By Carol Morello
Carol Morello is the diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post, covering the State Department.

Iran shipped thousands of pounds of enriched uranium to Russia on Monday, a key commitment in the nuclear deal that had to be fulfilled before international sanctions can be lifted.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry applauded the transfer, calling it a "significant milestone" toward the deal's implementation. He said the one shipment alone more than triples the estimated two- to three-month "breakout time" needed for Iran to acquire enough weapons-grade uranium to build one nuclear weapon.

Under the agreement reached July 14 in Vienna, Iran was required to whittle down its stockpile of low-enriched uranium to no more than 300 kilograms, about 660 pounds. Low-enriched uranium can be used to generate electrical power, but it must be enriched further to create ­weapons-grade material.

Kerry said that Iran had transferred 25,000 pounds of low-enriched uranium and materials, including scrap metal and fuel plates. State Department officials said they believe Iran has now rid itself of almost its entire stockpile of enriched uranium.

Iran has always insisted that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes, despite a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the country had actively worked until 2009 to design a nuclear weapon.

The nuclear negotiations aimed to ensure that Iran will have a breakout time - the time needed to amass enough weapons-grade uranium for one nuclear weapon - of at least a year. That is supposed to give enough of a lead for other countries to detect any potential cheating and decide how to respond. Monday's shipment, Kerry said, "is an important piece of the technical equation."

A Russian diplomat told the Tass news agency Monday that Russia had completed the procedure of withdrawing the stockpiled material, and Kerry later said the uranium had left Iran. In return, Iran will get 137 tons of natural uranium material, supplied in part by ­Kazakhstan.

The transfer suggests that Iran is well on its way to meeting its obligations under the nuclear deal it reached with six world powers, including the United States. The country still must complete a number of other steps, including dismantling centrifuges and pouring cement into the core of the Arak reactor. The International Atomic Energy Agency is responsible for verifying everything before sanctions can be eased.

Initially, Iran predicted it would finish all the work before year's end, but U.S. experts estimated it would take many months more and probably would not happen before spring. Now it appears likely Iran will be done by the latter half of January, paving the way for sanctions to be lifted before Iran holds elections in February.

Iran's pragmatist president, Hassan Rouhani, pursued talks that led to the nuclear deal after he was elected on a vow to bring sanctions relief. The deal has been strongly opposed by hard-liners, however, and the Iranian government is hoping to have at least the promise of imminent sanctions relief in place before election day.

Even as Iran was moving to complete one key commitment, the Foreign Ministry warned that Tehran would reciprocate if there is any breach in the deal. Last week, Iran said U.S. visa restrictions recently passed by Congress, prohibiting visa-free travel for visitors to Iran, violate the deal.

"Any steps taken outside the agreement are unacceptable to Iran, and Iran will take its own steps in response where necessary," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hossein Jaberi Ansari told a televised news conference when asked about the U.S. law.

Mark Toner, the deputy State Department spokesman, said that the administration does not consider the new law a violation and that it will not prevent the United States from meeting its commitments on sanctions relief.

 [return to Contents] 

 #28
Reuters
December 28, 2015
Russian Officials Get Quirky Holiday Gift: a Book of Putin's One Liners

MOSCOW - Some of Vladimir Putin's saltiest one liners have been turned into a book by his supporters who have sent a batch to the Kremlin touting it as the ideal holiday gift for patriotic Russian officials.

The tome, entitled "The Words that are changing the World," is the latest expression of admiration from fans who cast the president as the saviour of modern Russia and will join an array of Putin-themed merchandise from perfume to vodka.

"We had begun to notice that everything which Putin says comes to pass to one degree or another," Anton Volodin, author of the 400-page book, which was published by a pro-Kremlin group called Network, said in a statement.

"In this book we traced his words and confirmed that idea."

Among memorable quotes selected are Putin's threat to "rub out" Chechen militants in the "out house," his contested assertion that Crimea was always and remains an "inseparable" part of Russia, and a bizarre brush-off of Latvia in which he told Riga it could only expect to receive "the ears of a dead donkey" from Moscow, a Russian expression for nothing.

Blunt, barrack-room language is part of Putin's stock in trade and helps him send signals to the state security elite which he, as a former intelligence agent, springs from.

Putin, in a quote too new to be included in the book, used that trademark vernacular this month to suggest Turkey's political leadership may have "decided to lick the Americans in a particular place" by shooting down a Russian warplane.

Other quotes that are included centre on Putin's patriotism.

"For me Russia is my whole life," reads one, while others disparage Western-style democracy and same sex marriage.

Nikolai Svanidze, a historian, said the new book reminded him of the Little Red Book and its quotes from Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong published in the 1960s.

"It's an Asian tradition," he told the RBK daily. "Countries with authoritarian regimes always try to publish their leader's most sparkling expressions even if those expressions are not that sparkling."

The pro-Putin group which published the book has in the past been awarded generous grants by the Kremlin. The tome should hit Russian bookstores in January priced at 800 roubles ($11.12).

The group, Network, said on Monday it had given 1,000 limited edition copies to the Kremlin, which in turn had handed them out to officials and politicians as a present ahead of Russia's main New Year holiday.

RBK cited named officials as saying they had received the present and had been told by a top Putin aide that it should sit on their desks. The tome would help them understand the decisions underpinning Russia's domestic and foreign policy, the aide was quoted as saying.

Putin's personal rating remains above 80 percent despite a serious economic crisis thanks, say independent pollsters, to his decision to annex Crimea and launch air strikes in Syria.

With state TV devoting saturation coverage to the 63-year-old leader, he is rarely off the screen.

Aides say Putin, whose third term as president lasts until 2018, takes a dim view of the idea of a Soviet-style cult of personality around him even though his likeness is used to sell everything from fridge magnets to mobile phone covers.

Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, distanced the Kremlin from the new book. He said he had not seen it and that it was unlikely to have been a centralised Kremlin initiative but might have been prepared by another part of Putin's executive office.

 [return to Contents] 

 #29
Fort Russ/RBC
http://fortruss.blogspot.com
December 28, 2015
Kremlin Sends Politicians A Collection Of Quotes From Putin

RBC
http://www.rbc.ru/politics/28/12/2015/568003689a7947511ad947b2
Translated by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ

On the recommendation of the Kremlin, all politicians are to read the collection of quotations of Vladimir Putin entitled "Words that changed the world". RBC spoke to a few participants in the meeting, which was held earlier this week in the presidential administration. The meeting, according to interlocutors to RBC, was attended by about 50 people, including state Duma deputies, members of the Federation Council and Public chamber, and first Deputy head of the Kremlin administration Vyacheslav Volodin. "Volodin spoke about the book. He said that it should be on the table of any politician", - said a participant of the meeting close to the leadership of the state Duma.

A Christmas gift

After the meeting, politicians were given this book as a gift for the New year from Volodin. RBC spoke to several deputies of the state Duma, the Chairman of the state Council of Crimea Vladimir Konstantinov and Secretary of the Public chamber of the Jewish Autonomous region Natalia Matienko. According to the latter, she received the book by mail enclosed with a letter from Volodin. In the book there is a collection of articles and speeches of the President allowing us to understand the values and principles that lie at the heart of the major domestic and foreign policy decisions.

A member of Volodin Kremlin's internal policy Department confirmed to RBC that they had given the book to about a thousand politicians and officials. It was sent to the governors, speakers of regional legislatures, some state Duma deputies, the representatives of the popular front (the members of the Central staff, the regional co-chairs and heads of Executive committees), members of the Council of the Public chamber and the secretaries of the regional chambers will receive the book as a gift as will the officials of the political administration of the Kremlin.

The book is of annual format on the eve of the New year, explains the interlocutor in the Kremlin. It's part of the educational program of the Department of internal policy, along with educational seminars, which are held regularly by the management. According to the source, last year Volodin gave politicians a book of Putin's favourite philosophers: Ivan Ilyin, Vladimir Solovyov and Nikolai Berdyaev.

Words that changed the world

The book is called "Words that changed the world", and features key quotes of Vladimir Putin." At almost 400 pages, there are 19 of Putin's speeches and articles in chronological order. The book begins with the speech of the President at the UN General Assembly in 2003 and ending on a speech there later this year. There is the so-called Munich speech of Putin, an interview with CNN in 2008, , "after Georgia attacked Tskhinvali", the pre-election article by Putin in 2012 and the President's speech to the Federal Assembly on the occasion of the inclusion of Crimea and Sevastopol as part of Russia.

In each of the 19 chapters, the book begins with a brief review of the authors. Then there is Putin's speech, with key quotes in bold. "These are the words that foretold and foreordained a global change in world politics", - states the preface.

For example, the first Putin speech in the UN shows that he understood that "the destruction of key institutions of international security is guaranteed to plunge the world into chaos", says the book. "If those, who in 2003 was present at the General Assembly, listened to the words of Putin, the world would be quite different - hundreds of thousands of people would be alive and Europe would not be  swept away by the wave of refugees from the Middle East," argue the authors in the commentary to the President's speech.

The book proves two facts, says the author Anton Volodin. "First, we began to notice that everything Putin says, in one degree or another, is coming true. In this book we have traced his words and confirmed that thought. Putin's words can be called prophetic," he says. Secondly, the authors wanted to prove that Russian policy is consistent, and the book is clearly proof that Putin did not change his position, insists Volodin.

Accordingly, the book is aimed at the domestic and foreign audiences. According to him, for officials, it is important to understand "what the President wants and where he is taking the state". For external audiences the book will be translated into English, he promises. People abroad need to understand the justice in Russian policy, says Volodin.

Recipients of Grants

The book was published via the youth movement "Network" - their work is supervised by the Department of internal policy of the Kremlin. According to Anton Volodin, a trial edition of the book was released a week ago. "The Department of internal policy liked it, so we donated them a thousand copies," he says. A source in the Kremlin also said they did not pay for the books.

Volodin explained how was the books were printed. According to him, the authors had different sources of funding. "Network" regularly receives presidential grants. In December it became known that they had received 11 million rubles for a creative workshop called "Art Hive". And in July, Alexei Navalny claimed that the movement, through other NGO's, had received 70 million rubles. But the presidential grants were not used for the printing of the book, said a representative of "the Network" to RBC.

The demand for the book is already present, so by the end of January it will be in stores, says the representative of the movement. The cost of the book will be about 800 rubles, and it is planned in the near future to print another few thousand copies, then the circulation will be increased, predicts RBC.

In general, books about Putin are in demand, so we are trying to supply them, said General Director of "Moscow house of books" Nadezhda Mikhailova. "Another thing is that it will depend on how prepared the book is," she adds.

The sign of the times

"The first parallel that comes to mind is a quotation collection by Mao Zedong (a brief collection of the sayings of the Chinese leader published by the PRC government in 1966. - RBC), - says historian and member of the presidential Council on human rights Nikolai Svanidze. In Asiatic countries with authoritarian and autocratic, the regime always tried to print the most vivid expressions of the leaders, even if these expressions are not very bright". He recalled that in the USSR even during the reign of Joseph Stalin there were no quotations. "Quotes needed to embed all his work - whether it be about physics or physical culture. "Quotes from Stalin were withdrawn, and it became mandatory on every occasion to publish only the words of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Now the words of Putin on physical culture are optional, but that may change" -the historian said ironically.

Svanidze didn't know members of the HRC had received the book from the Kremlin. "But I would be interested to read it and save it as the sign of the times," he says.

A source close to the Kremlin recalls that in 2000, there were many books about Vladimir Putin and that they were mainly published in the publishing house called "Europe" (it is actually controlled by the then-loyal to the presidential administration, political analyst Gleb Pavlovsky). Most notable was the book by Alex Chadaeva called "Putin. His ideology". "But if this book of Putin's speeches aims to prove his continued innocence, it is then in some sense the first of its kind for a book," said the interlocutor of RBC.

 [return to Contents] 

 #30
Russia Beyond the Headlines
www.rbth.ru
December 28, 2015
2015 in review: 8 key events in Russian culture
This year brought mixed fortunes for Russian culture, with successes in the realms of literature, art and ballet offset by the growing interference of the Orthodox Church in the cultural sphere. RBTH looks back at 8 important events in Russia's cultural life in 2015 that had an international impact.
By Oleg Krasnov

1. Reset at the Tretyakov Gallery

In February, a new director was appointed to head the country's major repository of Russian art, the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow. The post went to Zelfira Tregulova, an international curator famous for exhibitions of Russian art held in Rome, London and New York, and former deputy head of the Kremlin Museums. The Russian Culture Ministry hopes that she will be instrumental in promoting Russian art abroad. Another task facing the new head is the refurbishment of the gallery's buildings and expositions.

2. The Tannhauser controversy

In the winter of 2015, following a complaint from Metropolitan Tikhon of Novosibirsk and Berdsk, administrative proceedings were launched against the director and manager of the Novosibirsk Opera and Ballet Theater, Boris Mezdrich, for the "deliberate public desecration of religious objects."

The theater staged Wagner's opera Tannhauser in December 2014. In the version of the opera staged by director Timofey Kulyabin, the action is set in the present day, with Jesus a character in an erotic film being made by knight Tannhauser.

Following the complaint by the Orthodox Church, the Russian Culture Ministry removed the production from the theater's repertoire and sacked both the director and the manager. The scandal rumbled on throughout the year, with critics describing the controversy as "censorship in art."

3. Starchitects in Moscow

Three winners of the Pritzker Architecture Prize left a mark in Moscow this year, with two buildings and one project. In the summer, Rem Koolhaas opened the new building of the Garage Museum of Contemporary Art (having refurbished a former Soviet-era restaurant). In the fall, a business center designed by Zaha Hadid finally opened its doors 10 years after construction began.

Another refurbishment project - that of the GES-2 power plant in Moscow - will be carried out by Renzo Piano. He has been invited by Russian billionaire Leonid Mikhelson, who is planning to convert the plant into an arts center by the end of 2018.

4. Hero of the Bolshoi

The ballet Hero of Our Time, which saw its premiere at the Bolshoi Theater on July 22, is a reminder of the kind of production the storied theater symbolized for the world for many decades: long ballets with many acts and a serious literary basis, complicated plot, exclusive music, compound decorations and hundreds of costumes.

Hero of Our Time meets all of these criteria and revives these traditions. Prepared during the year of the 200th anniversary of the birth of Mikhail Lermontov, the author of the novel of the same name, the ballet recreates one of the best-loved Russian novels through choreography.

The score for the ballet was composed by Ilya Demutsky, who is still under 30, while Russian drama star Kirill Serebrennikov worked on the libretto. Yuri Possokhov, who has staged Cinderella at the Bolshoi, as well as several performances for the San Francisco Ballet and many other companies, was appointed as the choreographer.

5. Nobel Prize for Literature returns to the Russian world

After a 28-year interval, the Nobel Prize in Literature was awarded to a Russian-language author, writer and journalist Svetlana Alexievich, the author of documentary fiction War's Unwomanly Face, Enchanted with Death, and Chernobyl Prayer.

Technically, Alexievich is a Belarusian citizen but ever since Soviet times she has been writing in Russia and this is where her works have always been published. All her books are based on journalistic investigations and interviews with eyewitnesses of various tragic events in history. Thus, her Nobel Prize success has raised another important question in modern literature, that of the line between journalism and fiction.

6. Avant-garde anniversary

Large-scale exhibitions of Russian avant-garde art have been traveling around the world for the past couple of years, yet a formal cause for celebrating the centenary of the movement came in the summer. On Jun. 21, 1915, Kazimir Malevich created his famous Black Square, which became a global symbol of suprematism and avant-garde art. The Basel-based Fondation Beyeler even recreated the legendary Last Futurist Exhibition 0.10 at which Black Square was first shown to the public.

7. New classics

In the summer, Moscow and St. Petersburg hosted the 15th International Tchaikovsky Competition, which in the 60 years since its inception has become one of the most respected classical music competitions and has launched the careers of many world-class performers.

This year's favorites included tenor from Mongolia Ariunbaatar Ganbaatar, South Korean tenor Myonghyun Lee, and pianists Lucas Debargue from France and Dmitry Masleyev from Russia.

8. Theatrical exchange

Since the "Russian seasons" of 1997, Russian drama directors have been conspicuous by their absence from the program of the main event on the theater calendar, the Avignon Festival. Until this summer, when the artistic director of the Moscow-based Gogol Center, Kirill Serebrennikov, was invited to present his production of Idiots, inspired by the Lars von Trier film of the same name.

For its part, Moscow welcomed the theater legend Robert Wilson, who staged Pushkin's Fairy Tales at the Theater of Nations, described by critics as "the production of the year" in Russia.

 [return to Contents] 

 #31
Moscow Times
December 28, 2015
12 Things to Do on the 12 Days Of Christmas

1. Have dinner on an ice-breaker yacht

Take in the stunning Christmas lights of Moscow whilst meandering on the Moscow River on one of the new Radisson Hotel flotilla of ice breaking yachts that ply the water 365 days a year. You can dine in the on-board restaurant or simply just come along for the ride. It's the perfect way to see the city after dark.

radisson-cruise.ru

2. Satisfy your sweet tooth in Russia's biggest candy shop  
Alyonka has just opened a chocolate supermarket in Moscow. Five hundred square feet of chocolate paradise with over 500 varieties of sweets from the most celebrated Russian confectionary brands. There are also beautiful hand painted chocolate tins, ice-cream, a cafe and baked goods.

uniconf.ru

3. Hang out with Huskies in Kuzminki Park

Every weekend from noon to 5 p.m., you can find huskies and husky puppies ready to be loved in Kuzminki Park. Take them for a walk, go on a sleigh ride or play in a husky puppy pen. You read that right: a pen full of husky puppies. Ten minutes with the puppies costs 200 rubles. The say money can't buy happiness, but we say when puppies are involved, it can.

park-kuzminki.ru

4. Get lost skiing in Sokolniki Park

Okay, it's not the alps, but Sokolniki Park offers a great cross country skiing service. It's the perfect way to escape from the city and get lost in over 15 kilometers of tracks that take you through the park's forests. If you fancy a break from the hustle and bustle of the city,this winter wonderland is the perfect place to take a breather.

park.sokolniki.com

5. Take the kids to a fun play in English

The Flying Banana Theater is putting on a funny, touching, engaging and very colorful musical in English about the harrowing adventures of a stick man who has trouble moving about the city. It's been held at 11 a.m. on January 6 at the fabulous Worker and Collective Farm Girl center right outside the gates of VDNKh Park.

moscowmanege.ru/en/stick-man

6. Take a tour of the metro

If your daily commute on the metro is so tiresome that you've stopped looking around, discover its beauty and fascinating history on a tour of the main stations. It's lots of fun, very interesting, and also very warm on cold days.

moscowfreetour.com

muzeon.ru

7. Take your kids to an antique circus

Check out this short performance of the Mandarin Angel for kids aged 4 and older Meyerhold Center. Dancing, juggling, flying, and making dreams come true - that's what the Mandarin Angel does during the holiday season.  

meyerhold.ru

8. Hop on a steam train

The Russian Railways have dusted off and polished up a small fleet of steam trains that will take you and your family on all kinds of tours, from a short jaunt over to the Railway Museum to see Grandfather Frost and the Snow Maiden, to tours around Moscow's trains stations and trips out of the city to Suzdal, Kolomna and a farm. All aboard!

rzdtour.com/routes/retrotrain-moscow

9. Go backstage at the Bolshoi

If you were too late, or too poor, to get tickets to the Nutcracker at the Bolshoi Theater, take a backstage tour instead. They run in English three times a week, and if you're lucky, you'll catch a rehearsal in progress.

bolshoi.ru/en/about/excursions

10. Experience the miracle of Christmas

Come to Muzeon on Jan. 7 to see a grandiose performance of dance, stunts, lights and magic as Liquid Theater, Sila Sveta and other groups light up the sky. Does an event that took place centuries ago in a small desert town have meaning for us today? Come and see.

muzeon.ru/articles/480-rozhdestvo

11. Go snow tubing

Tubing is taking the city by storm and is a great way to release your inner child. Parks around the city have constructed ice shoots for inner tubes. There are plenty of sites around the city, including a slope that you can use in any weather at Muzeon. Bombs away.

muzeon.ru/articles/470-tyubingovaya-gorka

12. Hear an angel sing

To experience a special miracle, get tickets to hear the young soprano Yulia Lezhneva sing Mozart, Rossini, Bellini and Schubert at the grand hall of the Moscow Conservatory on Dec. 29, accompanied by Mikhail Antonenko on the piano and the Musica Viva Chamber Orchestra.

mosconsv.ru

 [return to Contents] 

 

 [return to Contents] 

 #33
Washington Post
December 29, 2015
Editorial
Russia's new underwater nuclear drone should raise alarm bells

FROM THE first days of the atomic age, nuclear weapons have been designed to be aimed at two kinds of targets - military, and cities and industry. The only time the weapons were used in war, by the United States at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were dropped on cities. In the Cold War that followed between the United States and the Soviet Union, the majority of strategic nuclear weapons on intercontinental ballistic missiles were aimed at military targets, known as counterforce, while fewer were pointed at cities and industry. But the city-busting targets loomed large in the public mind and in the deterrence concept known as mutual assured destruction, in which the two superpowers faced each other in a cocked-pistols standoff.

The atomic bomb as a city-buster has always inspired terror. Fortunately, in the past two decades, these massive stockpiles have been radically reduced. So why would anyone want to go back to the era of nuclear fear? That is the question that hangs over the disclosure that Russia has been developing a nuclear-armed, underwater, unmanned drone. The new weapon was revealed when Russian President Vladimir Putin met with military chiefs in Sochi in November and television news footage captured a page being used in the briefing. The Kremlin later said the video showing "Ocean Multipurpose System 'Status-6'' should not have been broadcast, and the video was deleted, but by that time it had gone viral - and global.

Russia appears to be creating a tactical nuclear weapon that could be slipped into a harbor, unleashing a tidal wave as well as the devastating effects of a nuclear explosion. It might be used to attack a military target, such as a submarine or naval base, but cities and industry could also be hit. According to the video, the mission of the proposed system is: "Damaging the important components of the adversary's economy in a coastal area and inflicting unacceptable damage to a country's territory by creating areas of wide radioactive contamination that would be unsuitable for military, economic, or other activity for long periods of time." There are no arms control treaties in place to stop this; smaller tactical nuclear weapons have never been limited by treaty. And it is true that the United States, Russia and China are all modernizing nuclear and conventional forces.

The Russian drone now on the drawing board may reflect Mr. Putin's oft-expressed desire to counter the U.S. antiballistic missile system with an asymmetric weapon. If so, this is a particularly dangerous choice. It could expand the threat of nuclear weapons into a whole new area. Unfortunately, there won't be much debate about the drone in Moscow, where the news media and parliament are largely under Mr. Putin's control and little scrutiny exists of his military adventures.

 [return to Contents] 

 #34
RFE/RL
December 29, 2015
2015: The Year Putin Bounced Back
by Carl Schreck

In December 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama fielded a question about Russia while addressing a group of American business leaders in Washington. President Vladimir Putin's incursion into Ukraine and "backward-looking" policies, Obama said, are "isolating Russia completely internationally."
 
If it was Russian expansionism last year that triggered this isolation, it was Putin's expansive foreign policy this year that brought him back in from the cold. But he enters 2016 with Western sanctions and seemingly bottomless oil prices still battering Russia's economy, challenges to his energy-export diplomacy growing, and uncertainty surrounding the outcome of air strikes in Syria.
 
From his military intervention in Syria to his push for a counterterrorism coalition following last month's terrorist attacks in Paris, Putin bounced back in 2015 from the ostracism he faced on the international stage following Russia's seizure of Ukraine's Crimea Peninsula in 2014 and the eruption of a bloody war between Kyiv's forces and Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.
 
"The main achievement of Putin [in 2015] is that he's back, that he's more or less accepted as someone we have to talk with, as someone who could maybe even help us in terms of crises otherthan the Ukraine crisis," said Stefan Meister of the Berlin-based Robert Bosch Center For Central And Eastern Europe, Russia, and Central Asia.
 
Like any gambit, Putin's push to make Russia an indispensable player in resolving the civil war in Syria and a leader in a joint fight against terrorism carries risks.
 
The aerial bombardment campaign he launched on September 30 to support Syrian government forces against opponents including Islamic State (IS) militants and more moderate rebel groups has already irritated Western and Gulf Arab states that say the intervention is chiefly aimed at propping up Russia's staunch ally, President Bashar al-Assad.
 
The intervention also threatens to drain financial resources away from Russia's foundering economy, upset its large Sunni Muslim minority, and raise the threat of terrorism at home, while unexpected events like Turkey's downing of a Russian bomber near the Syrian border on November 24 can produce geopolitical fallout like the ensuing rift between Ankara and Moscow.
 
While Putin is less isolated than he was at the turn of 2015, the Russian people may be more isolated. Putin banned flights to Egyptian Red Sea resorts after a passenger jet was bombed over the Sinai Peninsula in what IS militants said was revenge for Moscow's Syria campaign. He then ordered Russian travel firms to cease selling trips to Turkey to Russian tourists.
 
Nor does the Russian bombing campaign in Syria appear likely to convince the United States or the European Union to roll back sanctions imposed on Moscow over its interference in Ukraine. The EU extended sanctions against Russia through July 2016 on December 21, and Washington added nearly three dozen people and companies to its sanctions list the following day.

"The is absolutely no trade-off, there is no ability for Russia to leverage cooperation on counterterrorism in Syria for any kind of change in our very clear strategy and policy on Ukraine," Celeste Wallander, senior director for Russia and Central Asia on Obama's National Security Council, told RFE/RL in a recent interview.
 
Putin's stepped-up intervention in Syria, however, has brought Russia back to the table in terms of Middle East politics, has "reminded people Russia counts," and has had "a great legitimating effect at home," said Mark Galeotti, a professor at New York University and an expert on Russia's security services.
 
"So far -- and it might well be [like] someone who jumps out of a window and says he's fine until actually hitting the ground -- but so far, at least, it's actually proven very successful at doing the things that he's wanted it to do," Galeotti told RFE/RL.
 
'Common Ground'
 
Putin's foreign policy in 2015 has been "about dealing with the consequences of 2014," Galeotti said.
 
"A central issue has been the intertwined issues of economic sanctions and just generally the sort of growing isolation, and a sense of trying to sort of basically roll back both," Galeotti said. "And obviously we saw that most graphically and obviously with the Syrian adventure."
 
Putin leveraged the Syria crisis and two terrorist attacks claimed by IS -- the November 13 spree that killed 130 people in Paris and the downing of the Russian jet in Egypt, which killed 224 -- to reassert his diplomatic swagger.
 
On the international stage, perhaps the starkest contrast between the Putin of 2014 and 2015 was in his treatment at annual meetings of the G20.
 
Putin left the 2014 G20 summit in Brisbane early after facing searing criticism: Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott vowed to "shirtfront" him over the July 2014 downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine, which Kyiv and Western governments blame on the Russia-backed separatists.
 
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Putin: "I guess I'll shake your hand, but I only have one thing to say to you: You need to get out of Ukraine."
 
This confrontational tone was virtually absent from the November 2015 G20 meeting in Antalya, Turkey, where Putin huddled with Obama and met with an array of other leaders, and where Russia and the West appeared to draw closer to agreement on how to end the Syrian civil war.
 
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, meanwhile, met with Putin in in May in the Black Sea resort of Sochi -- his first trip to Russia since outbreak of the conflict that has killed more than 9,000 people in eastern Ukraine -- and again in Moscow in December. And French President Francois Hollande made a snap visit to Moscow following the Paris attacks and urged collaboration between Russia and Washington to defeat IS in Syria.

'If one looks at how after the Paris attacks, how quickly Hollande came to Moscow, and the very positive vibes around that meeting, I think this very much says that in fact Putin has demonstrated that there are worse things in the world than Putin's Russia, and that actually isolating it can cause problems and potentially is putting aside a useful instrument," Galeotti said.
 
Ahead of Kerry's latest trip to Moscow, Wallander framed the heightened U.S. engagement with Russia on Syria in 2015 as part of the Obama administration's two-track diplomacy with Moscow, saying that Russia is not yet "fully pulled out of the isolation that President Putin had managed to maneuver Russia into as a result of his choices on Ukraine."
 
"Russia is more active on the issue of Syria's civil war, and through its direct military intervention. But Russia was always involved in issues of global importance," she said. "We always made exceptions to our general isolation policy of Russia when there are issues of global and national security importance."
 
After Kerry's meeting with Putin this month, the U.S. diplomat replied to a question about Obama's comments a year ago portraying Russia as isolated by saying: "We don't seek to isolate Russia as a matter of policy."
 
"At that particular moment of time, there was an effort to try to make a statement about what had happened. But we have consistently said that the world is better off when Russia and the United States find common ground and an ability to be able to work together," Kerry said.
 
Looking Ahead
 
At home, the anti-Western rhetoric that built to a fever pitch amid the conflict in Ukraine may not disappear next year.
 
With elections to the State Duma lower house of parliament due slated for September, 2016 "is going to be the year of a certain amount of necessary nationalistic bombast," Galeotti told RFE/RL.
 
But the Kremlin will nonetheless likely seek to extract itself from its "colossal blunder" that the quagmire in eastern Ukraine has become, he added. "I think it'll be a period to kind of rebuild connections, trying to get rid of some of the sanctions," he said.
 
With EU member states also set to hold elections next year, Putin may hope that pressure from populist movements will provide a receptive audience for his overtures to scale back tensions, said Meister of the Robert Bosch Center For Central And Eastern Europe, Russia, and Central Asia.
 
"I think this opens leeway for Putin to get more gain or leeway on Ukraine and other post-Soviet countries," he said. "I think it can be also an even more successful year for Putin."
 
But there is pressure in the other direction, too, with several EU states pushing against Russia's plans for a second gas link to Germany, Nord Stream 2, on the grounds that it would increase Moscow's energy leverage and undercut EU unity. Poisoned ties with Turkey are also hampering Russia's efforts to broaden its options for exporting energy to Europe.
 
Meanwhile, on top of the Ukraine war, Russia's campaign of air strikes in Syria has opened Putin up to increasing criticism for something Moscow was rarely accused of as its military retreated after the 1991 Soviet collapse: killing civilians abroad.
 
And by siding with Shi'ite Iran and the Tehran-backed Lebanese Hizballah militia in Syria, Putin's intervention there risks a serious blowback by plunging Russia into the historic conflict between Shi'te and Sunni Muslims.
 
"Putin is not a good strategist. He is stirring up a hornet's nest of Sunni Muslims who will hold a grudge against him," former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, president of the Washington-based Brookings Institution think tank, told Reuters in November.
 
"He already had an internal problem with Islamist extremism, and he now has an external problem since ISIS was responsible for the Sinai plane bombing," Talbott added, using an alternate acronym for Islamic State.
 
The military strategist Edward Luttwak, however, told RFE/RL's Russian Service that "Putin is sufficiently resourceful to avoid the approaching carnage."
 
At his December 2014 meeting with U.S. business leaders, Obama sharply criticized Putin's stewardship of Russia, though he said Washington continues to offer Russia "a pathway to a diplomatic resolution" of the Ukraine conflict.
 
One year on, Wallander told RFE/RL that this pathway "is still open" and that Washington hopes to see the Minsk peace deal for eastern Ukraine -- which requires Russia to withdraw forces from Ukraine and cede control of the border to Kyiv -- "implemented early in 2016," which would be slightly beyond the December 31 deadline.
 
Asked whether Obama is more optimistic about Russia than he was a year ago, Wallander said the U.S. president is likely "in the same place, because we are in the same place on Russia living up to its commitments and being a constructive stakeholder on Ukraine."
 
"Full implementation of Minsk would be a sign that Russia was back on a track in which it can be a good neighbor, in which it can be a good European partner," she said. "But we haven't seen that yet. We haven't ruled it out, as I've suggested, but we haven't seen that yet."

 [return to Contents] 

 #35
Russia May Be Close to a Revolution But Not the One Opposition Hopes For, Sociologist Says
Paul Goble

Staunton, December 28 - Given the increasing pessimism among Russians because of declines in their standard of living, Russia may be approaching a revolutionary situation, according to Yekaterina Dobrenkova; but the revolution may not succeed or it may turn out to be very different than the one the opposition hopes for.

Earlier this month, VTsIOM released survey data showing a continuing deterioration in the opinions of Russians about their present and future situation.  Valery Fedorov, the polling agency's head, noted that Russians are about to enter 2016 with anything but an optimistic attitude.

"The reduction in the real incomes of the population by 10 percent over the last year, the new collapse of the ruble given the continuing decline of oil prices," he said, "is perniciously reflected in the prospects for economic growth. [And] precisely the absence of prospects, of 'light at the end of the tunnel' oppresses people most of all."

The Russian Orthodox nationalist portal "Russkaya Narodnaya Liniya" reported these findings and asked Ekaterina Dobrenkova, the pro-rector of Moscow's International Academy of Business and Administration, whether "a revolution threatens Russia?"  Her answers will be not be reassuring to the Kremlin (ruskline.ru/news_rl/2015/12/28/grozit_li_rossii_revolyuciya/).

Dobrenkova says that she agrees both with the data VTsIOM has offered and with Fedorov's conclusions and argues that "the time has come" for the government to face up to the problems, be honest with the population, and stop misleading it by suggesting that the peak of the crisis has passed.

"Unfortunately," she continues, "at present Russians have few reasons for optimism." And the government is making it worse because it is one thing to issue overly positive assessments of foreign actions but quite another to say things are good when it is talking about what Russians experience every day.

That only has the effect of increasing distrust among the population for all "official declarations and policies," Dobrenkova says.  And she urges Moscow to "take an example from [US President Franklin Delano] Roosevelt who honestly told his people that their country was in a difficult position and proposed a course unifying all strata of the population."

The Russian people is so constituted that it "is prepared to unite at difficult times for the Fatherland, but only the leader of the state must offer an idea and goal with the help of which people will unite around their President. Therefore, one should not be seeking to calm the people but to unite them!"

To date, however, she suggests, what the government has offered has not been a serious plan but rather a set of uncoordinated actions and political promises. "Without a unified strategy, the government will not be able to cope with the tasks it has set itself," and worse, the population will see this.

"Today," Dobrenkova says, "it is complicated to predict whether there will be a revolution in Russia."  The situation has not yet reached the point where those on top can't act and those below don't want to accept things as they are. "But when the dissatisfaction of those below exceeds 50 percent, then in this case, a revolution is possible."

The upcoming Duma and presidential elections could either be a means of overcoming this threat or they could exacerbate it given that in the campaigns "will appear forces who desire to whip up the anger of the population and direct it against the state" in order to weaken it and achieve their own goals, the sociologist says.

"Our foreign 'partners,'" she continues, "who do not wish us anything good are increasing their activities and financing on the eve of the elections." And if Russians are left without the ability to feed their families, no one can predict what they might do. The situation is not yet that dire, but it could become so.

At the same time, the Moscow scholar points out, "a revolution does not always lead to the overthrow of the government, because the demands of citizens can be different." The kind of revolution in Russia that the US and the opposition would like probably won't happen, "but this does not mean that the people will not go out into the square with their own demands."

The actions of the long haul truckers show this, she says, and others may follow. "What did the government do in this situation?" It made concessions that had the effect of showing that its earlier actions were "unjust" and should not have been taken in the first place.  Russians can see that.

"Now, legislation should be very carefully considered, for numerous laws that have been adopted are putting additional burdens on business and on the population. "Unfortunately, in the government, they continue to accept laws" designed to extract more resources from the population and are imposing them to try to cope with the crisis.

But in so doing, Dobrenkova says, the authorities are only making the situation for the country and themselves worse.
In next year's Duma election, the ruling United Russia Party is likely to suffer defeats as a result of this and becasue it hasn't brought new leaders to the fore and instead has denied Russians the opportunity to vote against all candidates, it has reduced the legitimacy of the elections by depriving them of the chance to "express their opinion."

 If things continue to deteriorate, Dobrenkova says, Russians will find other and perhaps to some less acceptable ways to express what they think.

 [return to Contents] 

 

 [return to Contents] 

 #37
www.rt.com
December 28, 2015
Ukrainian President Poroshenko's approval rating drops below ousted predecessor's

President Petro Poroshenko is currently less popular with the Ukrainian people than his predecessor Viktor Yanukovich was just before being ousted in an armed coup almost two years ago, a Gallup poll showed.

Poroshenko's approval rating dropped from 47 percent a few months after his election in May 2014 to just 17 percent after a year in office, the polling company reported. When Yanukovich was forced to leave office by armed crowds in February 2014, his performance was approved of by 20 percent of Ukrainians.

In Eastern regions still under Kiev's control roughly 11 percent of people polled approve of Poroshenko's work as president. The rating dropped even lower in the south, where just 7 percent said the president was doing a good job. Approval ratings were around 22 percent elsewhere in the country.

Despite his poor performance in the polls, Poroshenko is not yet the least-approved-of president of Ukraine as recorded by Gallup. Yanukovich's predecessor, Viktor Yushchenko, who came to power in the wake of mass riots in Kiev in 2004, had a rating of just 7 percent in 2009, when his term was about to expire. Yanukovich came to power the following year with a 46 percent approval rating, much like Poroshenko had near the start of his term.

The low approval of the current president is still better than that of the government of Prime Minster Arseny Yatsenyuk, which is supported by 8 percent of the population, down from 24 percent in 2014. It is also one of the lowest trust levels Gallup has recorded in Ukraine since 2006.

Nine in 10 Ukrainians think their government is 'rife with corruption,' with only 5 percent believing enough is being done to fight problems in this area. The figure is similar to the 6 percent who said this in 2013 before the coup in Kiev.

Just 19 percent of Ukrainians say their government is taking the country in the right direction, with 65 percent saying the opposite is true. By comparison, only 5 percent said the leadership was headed in the right direction under Yushchenko in 2009, the lowest figure on record.

Gallup conducted the poll in July and August and excluded the rebel-held regions of Donetsk and Lugansk, which account for approximately 2 percent of the Ukrainian adult population. Citizens of Crimea, which rejoined Russia following the coup in 2014, did not participate in the poll either.

The current Ukrainian authorities came to power on the promise of distancing the country from Russia and integrating with the European Union. Over the almost two years they have been in power, they have managed to significantly cut trade with Russia while failing to increase exports to other nations. They have also cut social benefits and hiked the cost of utilities in order to secure loans from the International Monetary Fund, and have de facto defaulted on Ukraine's $3 billion debt to Russia.

 [return to Contents]