Apparently the insanity in Washington is not letting up. – Natylie
In another step in the creeping escalation, the US said sending military trainers” to participate in the War in Ukraine is “inevitable,” The New York Times (NYT) reported on May 16.
The US’ highest-ranking officer, General Charles Q. Brown Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that Western armies will provide military trainers to Kyiv “at some point” in a move that would mark a significant departure from Nato’s previous reluctance to put boots on the ground in Ukraine.
“We’ll get there eventually, over time,” Brown told reporters, according to reports. He stressed that doing so now would put “a bunch of Nato trainers at risk” and tie up air defences that would be better used protecting Ukrainian soldiers on the battlefield, the NYT reported.
The revelation comes only a day after US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that it was “up to Ukraine to decide” if it wanted to use US-made weapons to strike targets inside Russian territory, a significant softening of the previous ban, due to fears of provoking a similar Russian retaliation.
The announcement also follows on from French President Emmanuel Macron’s earlier remarks that Nato should not take the possibility of committing troops to the fight in Ukraine off the table in order to maintain “strategic ambiguity” in the struggle against Russia. Those remarks provoked a strong condemnation from the Kremlin. Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered military manoeuvres with Russian nuclear missiles in response as a signal to the West of what its direct involvement in the war in Ukraine might lead to.
A growing number of European countries have followed Macron’s lead and signalled a willingness to consider sending military personnel to Ukraine. An Estonian official said last week they are “seriously” discussing the possibility of sending troops into western Ukraine in non-combat roles, while Lithuania’s foreign minister said training missions in Ukraine “might be quite doable.” Other leading European countries such as Germany have ruled out any direct involvement in the war by their troops.
The suggestion of direct Western military participation in the conflict comes as the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) come under increasing pressure from a new heavy assault on the eastern city of Kharkiv, where Russian forces are making their first advances in months. At the same time, little of the $61bn of new US military aid has appeared on the battlefield, according to battlefield reports, and Russia continues to pulverise Ukraine’s energy infrastructure with impunity. At least half of all of Ukraine’s generating capacity has been damaged or destroyed since an intense barrage began in January that has only intensified since then.
In addition to an ammo crisis, Ukraine is suffering from a manpower shortage, as undisclosed losses reach “catastrophic levels”, according to Ukraine’s former top general Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was removed from office earlier this year.
As a result, Ukrainian officials have asked their American and Nato counterparts to help train 150,000 new recruits closer to the front line for faster deployment, the NYT reports. A Ukrainian delegation is currently in Washington to lobby for more US aid.
So far, the US has rejected these calls but Brown said at a press conference that a Nato deployment of trainers appeared to be “inevitable.” “We’ll get there eventually, over time,” he said.
Previous US efforts to train Ukrainian soldiers have not been successful. Ahead of last summer’s much vaulted counteroffensive, elite troops were trained by the US in Grafenwoehr in Germany, but the counter-offensive was effectively thwarted by heavy Russian defences built up in the nine-month lull before the summer counteroffensive could be launched.
Compounding the problem is that Ukrainians are facing a battlefield far different and more intense than what American forces have fought on in recent years, the NYT reports.
“Moving the training into Ukraine, military officials acknowledge, would allow American trainers to more quickly gather information about the innovations occurring on the Ukrainian front lines, potentially allowing them to adapt their training,” the NYT reports.
Battlefield situation
Russia is widely expected to launch its own counter-offensive this summer; it may be already under way. Fighting to the north of Kharkiv, close to the Russian border, has already become intense, with Russian forces making slow but steady advances, albeit with heavy casualties.
Nato said on May 16 that it doesn’t believe Russia will make a breakthrough in the Kharkiv Oblast, but Rob Bauer, chairman of the Nato Military Committee, told journalists that even providing Ukraine with more military aid in a timely manner will “not necessarily discourage Russia from offensive operations,” reports European Pravda.
Christopher Cavoli, Supreme Commander of Nato’s Allied Forces Europe, said at a press briefing that the Russians “don’t have the numbers necessary to do a strategic breakthrough,” Ukrayinska Pravda reports.
“More to the point, they don’t have the skill and capability to do it, to operate at the scale necessary to exploit any breakthrough to strategic advantage. They do have the ability to make local advances and they have done some of that,” he added, saying that he was confident that the AFU will hold the line.
A Ukraine delegation in Washington is pressing for permission to use US missiles to strike at Russian forces being massed on the Russian side of the border and logistical supply lines in Russia, before crossing over to join the Kharkiv offensive. Video on Russian social media showed Grad missile launchers on the Belgorod highway, just inside Russian territory, parked on the road and firing missiles into Ukraine with impunity, as Ukraine can only use its homemade drones to strike at them under the current rules of engagement when they are in Ukraine proper.
Moscow’s reaction
The war of words is also being ratcheted up. Putin has already ordered nuclear missile military exercises and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a stern statement after Blinken’s comments allowing missile strikes inside Russia using Western-made weapons. It reminded the West that Russia’s military doctrine allows for the use of nuclear weapons if Russia faces an “existential threat.” On May 16, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov added that Moscow may lower the level of diplomatic relations with Washington if “certain scenarios” unfold, reports TASS. So far Russia has not broken off diplomatic relations with Washington and backchannel talks are ongoing, according to various reports.
Ryabkov said that Russia has never been the first to make such moves in its relations with the US or other Nato countries.
“But, in my opinion, [such steps are] quite possible if the West chooses the path of escalation,” the diplomat said, without saying what specifically would trigger such a move.
“I’m not ready to theorise on the subject,” he said. “If the situation continues to deteriorate, it will become a subject of specific analysis and decision-making at the level of political leaders.”
A uniquely Ukrainian strain of Neo-Nazism is spreading throughout Europe, which openly advocates violence against minorities while seeking new recruits. With Kiev’s army collapsing and a narrative of Western betrayal gaining currency, the horror inflicted on residents of Donbas for a decade could very soon be coming to a city near you.
Centuria, an ultra-violent Ukrainian Neo-Nazi faction, has cemented itself in six cities across Germany, and is seeking to expand its local presence. According to Junge Welt, a Berlin-based Marxist daily, the Nazi organization’s growth has been “unhindered by local security services.”
Junge Welt traces Centuria’s origins to an August 2020 Neo-Nazi summit “at the edge of a forest near Kiev.” There, an ultranationalist named Igor “Tcherkas” Mikhailenko demanded the “hundreds of mostly masked vigilante fighters present,” who were members Kiev’s fascistic National Militia, “make sacrifices for the idea of ‘Greater Ukraine.’” As the former head of the Neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine’s Kharkiv division, and commander of the state sponsored Azov Battalion from 2014 to 2015, Mikhailenko has professed a desire to “destroy everything anti-Ukrainian.”
Junge Welt reports that since 2017, the National Militia “had been practicing brutal vigilante justice” throughout Ukraine, including “tyrannizing the LGBTQ scene.” Centuria was subsequently blamed for a terrifying November 2021 attack on a gay nightclub in Kiev, in which its operatives assaulted revelers with truncheons and pepper spray.
Now the same Neo-Nazi sect “has an offshoot in Germany,” Junge Welt revealed. On August 24 2023, the 32nd anniversary of Ukraine’s independence, Centuria convened a “nationalist rally” in the central city of Magdeburg, “unmolested by Antifa and critical media reporting.”
Participants proudly posed with the flag of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) founded by World War II-era Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera. Centuria boasted at the time on Telegram, “although Ukrainian youth are not in their homeland, they are starting to unite.” Meanwhile, they threatened the “enemies” of their country with “hellish storm,” pledging that “Ukrainian emigrants” would not “forget their national identity for a few hundred euros.”
Junge Welt reports that Centuria “is currently raising funds for its parent organization’s combat unit,” which is commanded by Andriy Biletsky – the Azov Battalion founder who infamously stated in 2014 that the Ukrainian nation’s mission was to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade… against Semite-led Untermenschen.” At home, Centuria’s members express similar attitudes towards Muslims, Africans, and gays, whom they refer to, respectively, as the “German Caliphate,” “black rapists,” and “pedophiles.”
Now, the group’s members are working hard to pass their ideological vision down to future racists across the continent. “We are creating a new generation of heroes!” Centuria’s Telegram channel boasts. Accordingly, the neo-Nazi group has been arranging hiking trips to Germany’s Harz mountains with a Ukrainian nationalist scout association called Plast. This outfit opened chapters across the Western world beginning in the 1950s, in response to the Soviet Union’s hounding of fascists and nationalists. Besides receiving ideological indoctrination, Plast’s youthful members may have the opportunity to improve their physical fitness and receive military training. As Centuria ominously declares on Telegram, “free people have weapons.”
Opening ceremonies at the Lithuanian camp “Iskra” with Plast youth in an apparent “scout’s honor” salute, 2022
As Washington gradually backs away from its sponsorship of Ukraine’s war with Russia, it has begun ceding responsibility for the military campaign’s management – and likely failure – to Berlin. If US arms shipments continue to dwindle, Germany will become Kiev’s chief supplier of weapons. And the Germans may find that saying “no” to Ukraine could result in some nasty surprises.
Unlike the US, Germany does not enjoy an ocean-length buffer between itself and the fascistic proxy warriors it sponsors in Ukraine. After Ukraine’s much-hyped counteroffensive finally collapsed in late 2023, its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, grumbled a veiled threat during an interview with the Economist: “There is no way of predicting how the millions of Ukrainian refugees in European countries would react to their country being abandoned.”
While Ukrainians have generally “behaved well” and are “very grateful” to those who sheltered them, it would not be a “good story” for Europe if it were to “drive these people into a corner,” Zelensky remarked to the outlet.
To understand how more radical elements of a spent proxy force could turn their guns on the Western governments that armed them, one need only look at the events of September 11, 2001.
A secret Western-backed Nazi network
Centuria is seemingly not the only Azov-related Ukrainian movement seeking to infiltrate Europe. An apparently separate but identically named Centuria is doing the same, with help from an entrenched structure of elite European support.
In September 2021, George Washington University’s Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies (IERES) published a detailed and deeply unsettling report which documents how a once-secret order called Centuria was nurtured by a “self-described order of ‘European traditionalist’ military officers that has the stated goals of reshaping the country’s military along right-wing ideological lines and defending the ‘cultural and ethnic identity’ of European peoples against ‘Brussels’ politicos and bureaucrats.’”
IERES reported that Centuria’s military wing began training in 2018 in Ukraine’s Hetman Petro Sahaidachny National Army Academy (NAA), Kiev’s “premier military education institution and a major hub for Western military assistance to the country.”
The paper revealed that “as recently as April 2021, [Centuria] claimed that since its launch, members have participated in joint military exercises with France, the UK, Canada, the US, Germany, and Poland.”
Indeed, many of the neo-Nazi group’s members have drilled at the de facto NATO base in Yavoriv, just a few kilometers east of the Polish border.
Photo posted by the Canadian Armed Forces in Ukraine in 2020 shows the NAA graduation ceremony at the International Peacekeeping and Security Center in Yavoriv.
What’s more, “the group claims that its members serve as officers in several units of Ukraine’s military. Since at least 2019, Centuria has… [called] on ideologically aligned members of the AFU to seek transfer to specific units where the group’s members serve. To attract new members, the group – via its Telegram channel, which has over 1,200 followers and a dedicated mobilization bot – continues to tout its alleged role in the AFU and access to Western training, military, and exchange programs.”
Every Western government the IERES researchers approached claimed not to tolerate neo-Nazis in their militaries, insisting they “trusted the Ukrainian government to select and identify the right candidates” for their training programs. But Ukraine’s Hetman Petro Sahaidachny National Army Academy (NAA) has explicitly declared it carries out no such screenings, while also denying Centuria operates within its headquarters.
After the report’s author reached out to Centuria and the NAA for comment about the training of neo-Nazis, operatives of the extremist movement began purging their online footprints, and have concealed their real-world activities ever since.
Western media outlets have almost completely ignored the IERES report, save for a single article in the Jerusalem Post. The silence around the issue is all the more unusual given the credentials of its author, a Washington DC-based Ukrainian citizen whose work has been published by US government outlet Voice of America, and the US and UK-government funded “open source” investigative outfit Bellingcat.
Among Western officials, only the Canadian Armed Forces have commented on the report’s meticulously-documented findings, preposterously claiming that photos posted to Facebook by Centuria members had been “doctored” to advance “Russian disinformation.”
Such disingenuity is not surprising given the Canadian military’s well-documented history of providing training to hardened Ukrainian fascists — and its refusal to disavow Ukrainian Nazis.
To this day, the leader of the country’s military, Gen. Wayne Eyre, continues to refuse to apologize for giving a standing ovation to Yaroslav Hunka, a WWII Nazi collaborator honored by Canada’s parliament.
According to researchers, Centuria fighters within Ukraine have spent at least the last five years attempting to indoctrinate their high-achieving comrades into Neo-Nazism. The IERES report notes that Centuria “has been able to proselytize Ukraine’s future military elite inside the NAA.”
Portrait of a British-trained Neo-Nazi
Underlining the extent of the neo-Nazi penetration of Western military apparatuses, NAA cadet Kyrylo Dubrovskyi, attended an 11-month Officer Training Course at Britain’s esteemed Sandhurst Royal Military Academy in 2020. Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs celebrated his graduation while the NAA published a 12-minute video profile of the new graduate’s path to military leadership. IERES noted that Dubrovskyi “showed very keen interest in Centuria matters” while attending the Academy.
Dubrovskyi appears to have narrated a Centuria promotional video circulated on Telegram in May 2020, in which the group’s members are shown marching in Lviv, attending an NAA event, and firing their weapons. Dubrovskyi can be heard intoning, “our officers are raising the new army of Ukraine… We are the Centuria. We are everywhere… defend your territories, your traditions till the last drop of blood.”
A month before, Centuria posted an interview with an unnamed “cadet of Her Majesty’s Armed forces,” a description that could only match one individual: Dubrovskyi. He made clear he preferred training in Ukraine, as British training for military officers “put less emphasis on theory.” During this time, “Dubrovskyi enjoyed access to foreign cadets who visited the Academy,” and “on several occasions escorted foreign delegations that visited the Academy,” including cadets from the US Air Force and the French military.
It is unclear how much “theory” Dubrovskyi injected into the daily routines of Western soldiers with whom he crossed paths while at Sandhurst. IERES concluded that “Dubrovskyi and Centuria leveraged his status as a Sandhurst cadet” to promote the group and its ideology. On the “about” section of his personal YouTube channel, Dubrovskyi describes himself as “a cadet of the Royal Academy of Great Britain.” There, he posted multiple videos about his experiences at the academy, and at least one message expressing a desire to join the neo-Nazi Azov Regiment.
On Telegram in December 2020, Centuria made clear that infiltrating the Ukrainian military’s highest echelons was but the first step in a much wider ideological blitzkrieg: “Centuria is shaping a first-of-its-kind military elite whose goal is to attain the highest ranks inside the Armed Forces in order to become an authoritative core able to hold significant influence.” After consolidating its hold on the military, the group plans to penetrate the ranks of “Ukraine’s political elite,” in order to “carry out societal changes.”
Editor’s note: This article has been clarified to explain that Centuria exists as two separate organizations, both with origins in the neo-Nazi Azov movement.
Kit Klarenberg discusses this topic with Alex Rubenstein at their YouTube channel Active Measures.
MOSCOW, May 15 (Xinhua) — On the eve of his two-day state visit to China, which starts on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin took a written interview with Xinhua.
The following is the full text of the interview.
Question: In March 2023, President Xi Jinping chose Russia as a destination for his first foreign visit after his re-election as President of the People’s Republic of China. This year, upon your re-election as President of the Russian Federation, you, in turn, have chosen China for your first foreign visit. We have noted that over the last decade or so, President Xi Jinping and you have met more than 40 times in various bilateral and multilateral settings. This year marks the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Russia. What is your assessment of your contacts with Chinese President Xi Jinping? What do you expect from your upcoming visit to China? What is your forecast for the further development of Russia-China relations?
Answer: I am pleased to be able to address the multimillion audience of Xinhua, one of the world’s leading and most trusted news agencies and share my vision of the future Russia-China partnership. I would like to highlight that it has always relied on the principles of equality and trust, mutual respect for the sovereignty and consideration of each other’s interests. A special and prominent role in the development of our relations has belonged to wise and shrewd politicians and state leaders, such as Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China.
We first met back in March 2010, and we have been seeing and calling each other regularly ever since. President Xi maintains a respectful, friendly, open and at the same time business-like style of communication. Our every meeting is not just a dialogue between old friends, which is important, too, just like for everyone, – but also a fruitful exchange of views on the most topical issues on the bilateral and international agenda.
I have fond memories of the state visit of President Xi Jinping to Russia in March 2023, immediately after his re-election as President of the PRC. Just like in 2013, our country was the first one he visited as head of China. We had more than five hours of a face-to-face conversation, and the next day we followed an extensive and substantive official schedule.
This unprecedented level of strategic partnership between our countries determined my choice of China as the first state to be visited after the official inauguration as the president of the Russian Federation.
I have emphasized on many occasions that our peoples are bound by a long and strong tradition of friendship and cooperation. That is one of the most important pillars of bilateral relations. During World War II, Soviet and Chinese soldiers stood up together against Japanese militarism. We remember and value the contribution of the Chinese people to the common Victory. It was China that held back major forces of Japanese militarists, making it possible for the Soviet Union to focus on defeating Nazism in Europe. And, of course, we are grateful to our Chinese friends for their careful attitude to war memorials, to the memory of Soviet citizens who had fought for the liberation of China and supported the revolutionary struggle of the Chinese people, their righteous fight against the invaders. Today, Russia-China relations have reached the highest level ever, and despite the difficult global situation continue to get stronger.
This year is special for our countries. October 1 marks the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. The country is approaching this significant historical date with outstanding achievements, which we welcome as old, reliable and time-tested friends.
The USSR was the first to recognize the PRC on the second day of its existence. So in early October, we will also celebrate the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations.
Over the three quarters of a century, our countries have travelled a long and at times difficult way. We have learnt well the lessons of the history of our relationship at different stages of their development. Today, we know that the synergy of complementary strengths provides a powerful impetus for rapid comprehensive development.
It is important that Russia-China ties as they are today, are free from the influence of either ideology or political trends. Their multidimensional development is an informed strategic choice based on the wide convergence of core national interests, profound mutual trust, strong public support and sincere friendship between the peoples of the two countries. I am talking about our joint efforts to strengthen the sovereignty, protect the territorial integrity and security of our countries. In a broader sense, we are working to contribute to the development and prosperity of Russia and China by enhancing equal, mutually beneficial economic and humanitarian cooperation, and strengthen foreign policy coordination in the interests of building a just multipolar world order. All this is the key to a future success of our comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for the new era.
Question: Today, practical trade and economic cooperation between China and Russia is constantly developing. Last year, the US$200 billion trade turnover target you had set together with Chinese President Xi Jinping was surpassed ahead of schedule. In your opinion, what are the new specific features and growth points of practical trade and economic cooperation between China and Russia? In which areas Chinese-Russian trade and economic cooperation is likely to achieve even greater breakthroughs in future?
Answer: Trade and economic relations between our countries are developing at a fast pace, showing strong immunity to external challenges and crises. Over the past five years, we have doubled the Russia-China turnover: it reached US$227.8 billion last year, against US$111 billion in 2019. More than 90% of settlements between our companies are made in national currencies. So it would be more accurate to say that bilateral trade currently totals about 20 trillion rubles, or nearly 1.6 trillion yuan. China has remained our key business partner for 13 years, and in 2023, Russia ranked 4th among the PRC’s major trading partners.
Our countries have made an informed choice in favour of equal and mutually beneficial economic ties a long time ago. We are systematically and consistently developing strategic cooperation in the energy sector, working on new large-scale energy projects. Supplies of Russian agricultural produce to the Chinese market are showing positive dynamics; investment and production initiatives are implemented, and transport and logistics corridors between our countries are smoothly functioning and expanding. Given global turbulence and economic issues in the West, such results prove yet again the strategic wisdom of our sovereign course and pursuit of national interests.
As for our plans, we will try to establish closer cooperation in industry and high-tech, outer space and peaceful atom, artificial intelligence, renewable energy and other innovative sectors. We will keep working to provide favourable legal and organizational conditions for that and develop transport and financial infrastructure. I believe that Russian-Chinese economic ties have great prospects.
Question: The friendship between China and Russia goes on for generations, and the cultures of the two countries are deeply intertwined. This year and next year, in line with the agreements reached between you and President Xi Jinping, the China-Russia Years of Culture will be held. What is the role of cultural exchanges in expanding cooperation and friendship between our countries, as you see it? What is your personal perception of Chinese culture and what is your experience of it?
Answer: I have said more than once and will say again: Russia and China have been inextricably linked for centuries, both by an extensive common border and by close cultural and people-to-people ties. In the distant past, only rare tidings of China reached our country with merchants. Later on, the first embassies appeared, and the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, which made a truly invaluable contribution to the collection and systematization of knowledge about China, was organized in Beijing. The 19th century saw the first students of the Chinese language in Russia, followed by the first university departments as well as the first attempts at compiling dictionaries.
During the reign of Catherine the Great, Chinese art came into fashion. For example, the interiors of the Chinese Room of the Catherine Palace, the Empress’s private chambers, were richly decorated with lacquer panels from China. Unfortunately, the interior was completely destroyed during the Great Patriotic War, but restoration is underway involving specialists from China.
Today, Chinese culture and art are also of great interest to the Russian public. There are about 90,000 students and schoolchildren who study Chinese in our country. Tours of Chinese performing companies and exhibitions featuring Chinese artists are always a great success. Since the quarantine restrictions were removed, the tourist flow has been growing dynamically. Last year, more than 730,000 Russians visited the PRC.
I know that people in China are also keen to get acquainted with Russian literature, art and traditions. Our eminent theatre groups and musicians regularly perform in China, museums organize their exhibitions, and Russian films are run in cinemas. We are most willing to introduce our Chinese friends to historical, artistic and cultural heritage of multi-ethnic Russia in all its diversity.
To this end, President of China Xi Jinping and I decided to declare 2024 and 2025 cross years of culture between Russia and China, so as to implement this large-scale project in conjunction with the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between our countries. We expect the program of activities to be vibrant and abundant. A number of major events have already taken place. For example, in Moscow, for the first time, broad New Year celebrations were held according to the lunar calendar, while in Beijing and Xi’an, Chinese citizens got an opportunity to learn about the tradition of our holiday Maslenitsa at the Farewell to the Russian Winter festival.
Russia, just like China, firmly relies on the principles of multiculturalism, advocates the equality of cultures and the preservation of national identity. These and other important issues were in the focus of the 2023 St. Petersburg International Cultural Forum. A representative Chinese delegation most actively participated in the Forum. The free discussions held at the Forum are particularly important at this time, as they contribute to building a respectful dialogue between civilizations.
We intend to promote new formats of interaction, such as the Intervision International Popular Song Contest. China is the key partner in this project, which aims to spread and popularize national song schools.
As for my personal attitude to Chinese culture, I would like to emphasize that I am always eager to discover China’s unique and authentic traditions, especially during my visits to the PRC. I know quite a bit about your martial arts, including Wushu, which is very popular in our country. I also have respect for Chinese philosophy. My family members are also interested in China, and some of them are learning Chinese.
Question: This year, Russia has assumed the BRICS Chairmanship, and the current year is also the first year of “greater BRICS cooperation.” Please tell us about Russia’s priorities and plan of events as the BRICS Chair. What is to be done to facilitate harmonious integration of new members into the BRICS cooperation mechanism? How do you see the role of the BRICS mechanism in the global arena? What could be done to make “greater BRICS cooperation” even more fruitful?
Answer: Russia’s BRICS Chairmanship has gained a steady momentum. Full-scale work is underway on all three main pillars of cooperation – politics and security, the economy and finance, culture and people-to-people contacts.
One of the main goals of the Russian Chairmanship is undoubtedly the seamless integration of the BRICS new members. We are actively assisting them in joining the existing network of cooperation mechanisms.
As another priority, we seek to continue coordinated work to enhance the visibility of the association in global affairs and build its capacity to promote a more democratic, stable and fair architecture of international relations. I would like to particularly stress that cooperation within BRICS relies on the principles of mutual respect, equality, openness and consensus. That is why countries of the Global South and East, which see BRICS as a platform for their voices to be certainly heard and taken into account, find our association so attractive.
Russian agencies, business and public circles have prepared an extensive agenda for the Chairmanship. This includes a wide range of areas for enhancing interaction, including finance, agriculture, energy, intellectual property, healthcare, education and space exploration. Moreover, such niche and knowledge-intensive topics as nanotechnology, nuclear medicine and biotechnology are being discussed by experts in relevant fields.
We have held quite a few specialized events: in total, the Chairmanship plan envisages more than 200 of them. In addition to expert and ministerial meetings, they include numerous cultural events and youth activities. The BRICS Sports Games will take place in Kazan in June, and in October, the city will host the BRICS Summit.
Question: Multilateral mechanisms such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are currently working to bring countries of the Global South together in the spirit of equality, openness, transparency and inclusiveness, and are contributing to reforming the system of global governance. Chinese President Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized that he is looking forward to working with Russia to strengthen strategic cooperation in multilateral settings and implement the principles of genuine multilateralism. How do you assess cooperation between China and Russia within BRICS, the SCO and other multilateral mechanisms? In your opinion, what is the role of the two countries’ interaction in the international arena in promoting a community with a shared future for mankind.
Answer: Earth is the cradle of humanity, our common home, and we are all equal as its inhabitants. I am convinced that this view is shared by most people on the planet. However, the countries that affiliate themselves with the so-called “golden billion” do not seem to think so. US-led Western elites refuse to respect civilizational and cultural diversity and reject centuries-old traditional values. Seeking to retain their global dominance, they have usurped the right to tell other nations whom they may, or must not, make friends and cooperate with, and to deny them the right to choose their own development models. They disregard other countries’ sovereign interests. They seek to ensure their well-being at the expense of other states, just like in the old days, and resort to neo-colonial methods to that end.
Needless to say, neither Russia nor its partners are happy with this state of affairs. We have actively contributed to launching multilateral associations and mechanisms that are independent of the West and are successfully operating. In their work they build on the principles of equality, justice, transparency, respect and consideration of each other’s interests.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS, which have well established themselves as key pillars of the emerging multipolar world order, can be cited as vivid examples of such mutually beneficial cooperation. They have come to be reputable and dynamic international platforms whose participants build constructive political, security, economic and cultural and people-to-people interaction. Hence the ever increasing interest of other states in the work of these associations and the growing number of their participants.
Our countries have similar or coinciding positions on key issues on the international agenda. We advocate for the primacy of international law, equal, indivisible, comprehensive and sustainable security at both the global and regional level with the UN’s central coordinating role. We also reject Western attempts to impose an order based on lies and hypocrisy, on some mythical rules of no one knows whose making.
Question: From the outset of the Ukraine crisis, China has engaged in active efforts to find a political solution to it. During his meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on April 16, Chinese President Xi Jinping outlined four principles for the peaceful resolution of the crisis in Ukraine. On February 24, 2023, China published a position paper on the political settlement of the Ukraine crisis. What is your assessment of China’s stance and efforts on this issue?
Answer: We commend China’s approaches to resolving the crisis in Ukraine. Beijing is well aware of its root causes and global geopolitical significance, which is reflected in its 12-point plan entitled “China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis” published in February 2023. The ideas and proposals contained in the document show the genuine desire of our Chinese friends to help stabilize the situation.
As for the additional four principles of conflict resolution recently voiced by President Xi Jinping, they seamlessly fit in the above-mentioned plan. Beijing proposes practicable and constructive steps to achieve peace by refraining from pursuing vested interests and constant escalation of tensions, minimizing the negative impact of the conflict on the global economy and the stability of global value chains. The steps build on the idea that we need to forego the “Cold War mentality” and ensure indivisible security and respect for international law and the UN Charter in their entirety and interrelation. They could therefore lay the groundwork for a political and diplomatic process that would take into account Russia’s security concerns and contribute to achieving a long-term and sustainable peace.
Unfortunately, neither Ukraine nor its Western patrons support these initiatives. They are not ready to engage in an equal, honest and open dialogue based on mutual respect and consideration of each other’s interests. They are reluctant to discuss the underlying causes, the very origins of the global crisis, which has manifested itself, inter alia, in the dramatic situation around Ukraine. Why? Because today’s global shocks have been provoked precisely by their policies in the previous years and decades.
Instead, Western elites are stubbornly working to “punish” Russia, isolate and weaken it, supplying the Kiev authorities with money and arms. They have imposed almost 16,000 unilateral illegitimate sanctions against our country. They are threatening to dismember our country. They are illegally trying to appropriate our foreign assets. They are turning a blind eye to the resurgence of Nazism and to Ukraine-sponsored terrorist attacks in our territory.
We are seeking a comprehensive, sustainable and just settlement of this conflict through peaceful means. We are open to a dialogue on Ukraine, but such negotiations must take into account the interests of all countries involved in the conflict, including ours. They must also involve a substantive discussion on global stability and security guarantees for Russia’s opponents and, naturally, for Russia itself. Needless to say, these must be reliable guarantees. That is where the main problem is, since we are dealing with states whose ruling circles seek to substitute the world order based on international law with an “order based on certain rules,” which they keep talking about but which no one has ever seen, no one has agreed to, and which, apparently, tend to change depending on the current political situation and interests of those who invent these rules.
Russia stands ready for negotiations; moreover, we had engaged in such negotiations. On April 15, 2022, in Istanbul, together with the Ukrainian delegation, we drafted a peace agreement, taking into account the demands of the Ukrainian side, including those on future security guarantees for Ukraine. Moreover, the head of the Ukrainian delegation initialled the main provisions of the draft document. Our Western partners tried to convince us that in order to finalize and sign the agreement, it was necessary to provide conditions. The main point was that Russian troops be withdrawn away from Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. And so we did. But instead of signing the peace agreement, the Ukrainian side suddenly announced the cessation of negotiations. Later on, Ukrainian officials stated that they had done so, inter alia, because their Western allies had recommended that they continue hostilities and apply joint efforts to achieve Russia’s strategic defeat. We have never refused to negotiate.
Question: In your Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on February 29, 2024, you elaborated on Russia’s development goals for the next six years and relevant measures. On March 20, at a meeting with your election team, you called for building a new Russia, in order to make your country even stronger, more attractive and effective. What are your plans in state-building for this new term of office? How do you expect to achieve your goals?
Answer: The Address sets objective and essential goals pertaining to the development of all regions of the country, the economy, and the social sphere; they include addressing demographic problems, increasing the birth rate, providing support to families with children, fighting poverty and inequality. We recognize the scale of these challenges and can provide solutions. To do this we will rely on the consolidated will of our people, the necessary resources and capabilities, and the rich experience of interaction between the state, businesses and the civil society.
In addition, over the past few years, tremendous work has been done to establish an effective economic management system. The government and relevant agencies use big data sets, advanced digital platforms and computer networks spanning all sectors of the national economy throughout the country. We will continue with this work and seek to improve the efficiency of long-term planning and the implementation of programs and national projects.
Today, Russia is one of the world’s top five countries in terms of purchasing power parity. Now we are aiming for the top four largest economies on the planet. We prioritize such tasks as ensuring quality and the effective development across all spheres, as well as increasing our citizens’ well-being.
It is impossible to achieve quality economic changes without a sustained salary growth. To achieve this, we plan to increase labour productivity through the across-the-board adoption of scientific advances, new technologies and innovations, automation and robotization, and the creation of modern jobs. At the same time, we will engage in training competent, forward-thinking professionals who will implement greenfield projects and work in industry and the social sphere.
Our priorities certainly include training fresh talent for public and municipal government. We have a whole range of relevant programs, competitions and projects in place. We have also provided ample opportunities at the federal and regional levels to help talented people who love their homeland unlock their potential. These are people who are ready to assume responsibility, serve Russia honestly and faithfully, and, most importantly, who have proved it in deed, both in doing their work and going through the toughest hardships when defending our Fatherland and our people.
I am confident that we will implement all the strategic plans we have set. We are willing to work together with our partners worldwide, including China, our good neighbour and trusted friend.
Video of Putin, Xi signing documents on bilateral cooperation, holding press conference in Beijing
Chris Monday is an Associate Professor of Economics at Dongseo University in Busan, South Korea. Andy Kuchins is a Senior Fellow at the Center for the National Interest and Adjunct Professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC.
Editor’s Note: This article is the third installment in a series on the succession of Russian president Vladimir Putin. Read the first and second here and here.
In our first article in this series exploring potential successors to Vladimir Putin, we examined one option: the semi-dynastic succession of Putin’s cousin, Anna Putina Tsivilyova. In our second article, we considered the possibility of a hardline succession featuring Putin’s Chairman of the National Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, or his son Dmitri. In this article, we explore a third possibility: a reformer emerges from the ranks of the bureaucracy to become Russia’s next leader.
As renowned historian Vasily Kliuchevsky demonstrated, rather than hindering, war has necessitated reform multiple times in Russian history. Think of Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Alexander II, and even Gorbachev. Their initiatives depended on a unique class, what historian Bruce Lincoln called “enlightened bureaucrats” who play critical roles in running the government but are virtually never tapped as top leaders. These administrators wield their power thanks to their unique, specialized knowledge. Their mandate was to fortify the economy for prolonged conflicts while avoiding any fundamental reform.
The hereditary monarchy of Tsarist Russia made it impossible for these reformers to “rise from the ranks.” Peter needed military modernization and financing, not Western liberal values. His modernizers were mainly foreigners, especially Germans, and their increased presence in the Russian elite raised tension with conservative nobility whose wealth greatly depended on maintaining and deepening serfdom. This model peaked for the Russian Empire with the defeat of Napoleon’s Grande Armée. As the nineteenth century wore on, it was increasingly clear that Russia’s considerable, illiterate, land-based serf population was a crimp on economic growth and technological development. However, as Tsar Nicholas I told his State Council in 1842, “Serfdom, in its present form, is an evil obvious to all; but to touch it now would of course be an even more ruinous evil.” Russian Tsars, Soviet General Secretaries, and Vladimir Putin have all faced this dilemma in some form or another: the system is inefficient and corrupt, but reforming it risks destroying the foundation of state power. Arguably, the only leader to attempt systemic reform was the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, who was—and still is—vilified by modern Russian and Chinese propaganda.
The best historical analog to Vladimir Putin is Nicholas I, who served as Tsar from 1825 until his death in 1855. He was a conservative who sought to promote a newly branded state identity based on the troika of autocracy, orthodoxy, and nationality while defending other conservative European monarchies. He and his fellow monarchs viewed the liberalism that felled the Bourbon dynasty in France as the most dangerous threat to their sacred status quo. Notoriously, Nicholas’s leadership concluded with the failure of the Crimean War.
However, Russia’s current technocracy takes its cues from Georg Kankrin, one of Nicholas I’s finance ministers. Kankrin, who some historians credit with assisting Russia’s victory over Napoleon, steeled the economy for war by economizing the budget and maintaining a rigid monetary policy. Kankrin, who met the Tsar on a daily basis, had a unique prerogative to speak his mind because of his personal relationship with the monarch. Other famous Tsarist and Soviet mandarins include Pyotr Stolypin, who, under Nicholas II, spearheaded partial privatization of the land; Sergei Witte, who made the ruble convertible and launched the Trans-Siberian Railroad; Soviet Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin, who pushed Brezhnev’s politburo to implement administrative optimization. For nearly a decade, Putin’s friend, the former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, a fan of Kankrin, epitomized this brand of “enlightened” bureaucrat. This article focuses on the inheritor of this Russian tradition, Mikhail Mishustin, Putin’s current prime minister.
It’s a journalistic stereotype to assume the KGB runs Russia. Indeed, Mishustin, Kudrin (former head of the Accounts Chamber, former Minister of Finance, and current executive at Yandex), and his successor as Finance Minister, Elvira Naibvuilina, along with other Putin technocrats, wield significant personal power. They maintain influential patronage networks. The necessities of crisis management have granted these “enlightened bureaucrats” even more clout. In particular, Covid shutdowns and wartime disruptions have meant that they dole out massive state subsidies. Increasingly, Russian businesses and the military depend on the whims of the Kremlin’s civilian ministries.
While Russia’s military leaders have clearly underperformed, Russia’s financial wizards can boast of unqualified successes. Despite the West’s harsh sanctions, Russian supermarkets remain full. In the meantime, Russian military production has been significantly ramped up. Western experts are dumbfounded by Russia’s success in mass-producing deadly UAVs such as the Lancet model. Moreover, Putin’s technocrats have been able to replace European trade with alternative partners. The ruble, which was supposed to crush Putin, has remained stable. Despite isolation from international finance, there have been no Russian bank runs.
Ultimately, Putin (along with the majority of the elite) has realized there are few potential replacements with the necessary managerial competency and discretion available. Without his “enlightened bureaucrats,” Putin’s economy would crash quickly. Understanding their irreplaceability within the system, these bureaucratic managers enjoy significant leeway and wide prerogatives. It’s an open secret that Kudrin, Mishustin, and Nabiullina quietly opposed the war in Ukraine. Unlike other functionaries, they do not feel compelled to trumpet bombastic nationalist slogans. Their disciplined monetary policies, such as double-digit interest rates, have been widely criticized in the press and by heavyweights such as Igor Sechin. Nonetheless, with the full support of Putin, they refuse to back down. Putin knows well that a “patriotic” economist like Sergei Glaziev, who advocates free-wheeling spending on industrialization, would quickly run the economy into the ground.
From Systems Engineer to Tax Man to Prime Minister
Imagining a scenario in which a reformist leader in Russia could emerge under the current conditions of repression and militarization requires considerable imagination. Nonetheless, before his death in 2022, the wily Far-Right politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky named Mishustin as the leading contender to succeed Putin. In addition, the Russian Constitution calls for the prime minister to assume office as acting president if the presidency is vacant until new elections within ninety days. Indeed, this was the path Vladimir Putin followed in 1999.
Putin has been mindful of limiting the scope and prerogatives of his own prime ministers. Putin’s first Prime Minister, Mikhail Kasyanov, was able and charismatic and enjoyed close ties to the Yeltsin family. Leery of a Westernizer, conservative forces mobilized a PR campaign to relegate Kasyanov to the margins. They branded him “Misha two percent” for his alleged standard take on government deals. After Kasyanov, Putin was mindful of selecting humorless men with limited ambitions.
In his first years in power, Putin’s greatest fear was the wealthy oligarchs and their ability to buy political power. Thus, Putin has been careful to prevent his officials from abusing their access to revenue flows. In particular, Prime Ministers Mikhail Fradkov and Viktor Zubkov both worked in the sensitive area of tax collection: both were connected to Russian intelligence. After serving as prime minister, Fradkov even became Director of Foreign Intelligence. But to the public, they were faceless placeholders.
Dmitri Medvedev, who served as Putin’s premier from 2012–2020, appears to be an exception among Putin’s prime ministers, given his legal training and lack of intelligence service background. His management of Putin’s “national projects” was judged as ineffective, and it is hard to identify a single, distinctive success in his eight years as prime minister. In a rare case of a public split among the Putin elite, Kudrin in 2011 called Medvedev incompetent in financial matters. Indeed, Medvedev’s principal virtue is his loyalty to Vladimir Putin.
Around this time, Putin sought to cement his legacy as a modern-day “Collector of the Russian lands” to cement his legacy in the pantheon of expansionist Russian rulers. Putin understood this entailed military aggression and possible international isolation. Consequently, he would need a far more competent prime minister than Dmitri Medvedev. Russia’s technological progress was an existential need for both military competition and societal control. While Medvedev cultivated the image of a posh trendsetter showing off his iPad on every imaginable occasion, Mikhail Mishustin presented a more compelling image as a former systems engineer with immense IT sector experience dating back to the 1980s.
Mishustin’s father, Vladimir Moiseyeich Mishustin, was a KGB officer who worked most of his career at Aeroflot, an airline company. Trained as a systems engineer in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Mikhail joined the International Computer Club, established in 1988 during Perestroika as a central node for the nascent IT industry. There, he had the opportunity to network with international IT companies and Russian state enterprises. Mishustin rose quickly and eventually became a co-owner of the ICC and chairman of its board. KGB authorities were likely involved in the establishment of this club and certainly monitored it very closely. Selling used and new Western computers just before and after the collapse offered substantial profit opportunities. Notably, future Yukos CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky started his entrepreneurial career using siphoned Komsomol funds to buy and sell computers and other IT equipment….
A Man to Watch
Is there a chance for a relatively liberal figure to become the next Russian president? While we would like to conclude “never say never,” the practical chance is dim. After Putin’s persecution, is there even a liberal constituency left in Russia?
What are the chances of a modernizing reformer becoming the next leader of Russia? At least here, we have three examples of Russian leaders who fit this mold: Peter the Great, Gorbachev, and Yeltsin. Putin started in 2000 viewing himself as a modernizing reformer, but for a variety of reasons, he evolved into a reactionary autocrat.
After surveying the field, the only viable candidate we can identify is the current Prime Minister, Mikhail Mishustin. Ultimately, it’s not clear Mishustin would even be a moderating force. We know as much today about what Mishustin really thinks as we did about Vladimir Putin in 1999. They each keep their cards close to their chest, which is usually wise in a political snakepit. Those who know, or claim to know, Mishustin often remark that he is not politically ambitious. But frankly, it is difficult to believe anybody in any system who reaches the position of prime minister does not have a deep wellspring of ambition within them. In fact, this seems more the case for Mishustin than Putin, as there is a fairly clear history of networking and schmoozing mentors that have helped his rise. Perhaps when Putin was in the KGB and Mishustin at the International Computer Club before they became state officials, they were not politically ambitious, but not after.
It’s doubtful that it’s Mishustin’s time “to make a move.” He has served Putin effectively and loyally as Prime Minister for four years. Putin has shown that he values Mishustin’s work, as he has already strongly hinted that Mishustin will stay on as Prime Minister. What happens to the rest of the government as Putin enters his fifth term remains to be seen. What is clear is that no longer can anyone diminish Mishustin by describing him as merely a transitional figure.
Probably the most powerful Russian prime minister since Victor Chernomyrdin under Yeltsin in the 1990s, Mishustin is clearly a man to watch, and Western governments and analysts should invest more resources in getting to know him better. However, it is critical to understand that the West cannot help him politically, even if it wants to. By this time, we should know that even the perception of such support is the kiss of death for any Russian politician, reformist or otherwise.
