Apologies for the blog post that went out yesterday with a video that had been taken down. I had scheduled the post several days in advance. I will try embedding the video again – it has been reportedly re-released on YouTube – in a future blog post. In the meantime, I though I’d share a few interesting sources that go into the context of the whole Kurds/Turkey/Syria issue going on right now. I don’t have time at the moment to do a deep dive and write up my own analysis and commentary, but you may find these items useful in trying to understand this situation, which is more complicated than the corporate news and many politicians are portraying.

First we have two in-depth videos by political analyst Kim Iversen. As many regular readers have probably deduced by now, she is one of my favorites as she likes to do in-depth research on timely issues and then reports back and provides analysis on them via YouTube videos. She is, of course, heavy on foreign policy. I find her to be thorough and fair-minded in her analyses. She is pretty consistently non-interventionist as well. She tends to repeat herself a little bit, but I don’t find that too bothersome.

Below is a just published article by retired weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, providing his own experience with and knowledge about the Kurds in the region.

Why the Syrian Kurds Aren’t Necessarily Our Friends

Today, I’m featuring a guest post from James Chen. In this essay he explores how the Truman administration’s decision to use the atomic bombs on Japan in 1945 was not only morally reprehensible, but made no strategic military sense. Please feel free to offer your thoughts on this essay in the comments section. I’ll be back next week. – Natylie

According to the standard history textbooks  in U.S. high schools, Hirohito, the Japanese emperor, announced the surrender of Japan on August 15, 1945, after two atomic bombs had been dropped – one at Hiroshima and one at Nagasaki – by the Americans, thus ending the second world war in the Pacific theater.

There have been constant debates regarding the decision made by President Truman to drop the atomic bombs. Most of the discussions on the subject are focused on the necessity of the use of the bombs. On one end of the spectrum, the supporters of the decision emphasize the sparing of American soldiers’ lives and the seemingly apparent effect of the bombs pushing Hirohito to announce the surrender. On the other end, the opponents claim the emperor had already sensed the inevitability of defeat and would have surrendered, given the face-saving term of keeping the emperor, without the horrible effect of the bombs.

By analyzing all the articles on both sides, in general, the supporters are usually arguing based on incorrect or insufficient historical data, and even fallacious logic. However, most of the opponents frequently fall into believing a myth, ignoring the war criminality of Emperor Hirohito, and/or disrespecting the consensus arrived at among the allies at the Potsdam Conference:  seeking unconditional surrender from Japan.

So, some discussion on the fundamentals and the revelation of historical facts should precede meaningful analysis and a final conclusion on the matter.

The first fundamental question to ask is, “How does one make any enemy surrender in a war?”

There are basically two ways to make an enemy surrender:

a. By providing acceptable (face-saving) terms or by credibly threatening to end the leader’s life, which was a common practice throughout human history in wars involving feudal kingdoms and empires, before the birth of modern democratic republics. The empire of Japan was one archetypal example of a feudal monarch.

b. By rendering your enemy unable to conduct the war.  This can be achieved in several possible ways: by eliminating the leader’s command structure; by destroying a significant portion of his fighting forces, weapon manufacturers, infrastructure, transportation and communication, industrial resources, fuel, food and water supplies; or, occupying a critical portion of his territory.

The second fundamental question is whether the Truman administration followed these guidelines to win the war. In the summer of 1945, the top U.S. government officials from the newly sworn-in president on down didn’t seem to follow these essential guidelines to win the war against Imperial Japan, though the end of war was so near.

In my estimation, they made at least five crucial mistakes:

The first mistake was not recognizing the significance of the Japanese effort to relocate their capital. It’s indisputable that from the summer of 1942 through 1945, the American Navy in the Pacific, almost single-handedly, had reduced the powerful Imperial Japanese navy down to a wreckage. All the Japanese cities were within bombing range of the Americans, using either land-based heavy to medium bombers or carrier based light bombers. However, the Japanese Army was still in nearly full strength in Manchukuo and the occupied territories of China.

Although the Japanese government was sensing ultimate defeat in the future, there was no imminent need to comply with the Allies’ unconditional surrender demand. An intense negotiation was in progress with the Soviet Union in the hopes that the Soviets would continue to stay neutral. In the meantime, due to fear of possible destruction or occupation of Tokyo by American forces, the Japanese government had already started the relocation process of moving the central government from Tokyo to Hsinjin (New Capital in Japanese, nowadays Changtsun), Manchuria, to continue their fight with nearly one million untouched Kwantung Army soldiers.

The Japanese imperial military thinking followed the doctrine of the traditional Chinese military:  when an empire still has the strength to fight offensively, it should not remain in defensive mode; when it still has the ability to defend itself, it should not try to retreat; when it still has the option to retreat, it should not consider surrendering.  For the emperor, when surrendering is allowed, there’s no need to fight to the death, nor to commit suicide. It is fair to say that the Japanese government would not have considered surrendering unless Manchuria was invaded. Consequently, dropping an atomic bomb on Nagasaki would just waste a bomb and slaughter a huge number of civilians for no purpose.

The second mistake was continuing to indulge in an unproven myth to the point where no effort was made to destroy the Japanese commanding structure.

For reasons seldom discussed, there was a major myth clung to in the U.S. Department of War during this time – a myth that neither the Chinese nor the Soviets embraced.  That is if the Japanese Emperor were harmed, the Japanese would fight to their last. This represented completely illogical thinking for there’s never been such a phenomenon observed nor recorded in the whole of human history.

History actually shows the opposite to be true. Whenever the head of a feudal monarchy was killed, the monarchy either collapsed or suffered an existential crisis.  By not threatening Hirohito’s life directly then, the American government was violating the essential guidelines of war and choosing to slaughter more Japanese soldiers and civilians unnecessarily, while prolonging the conflict.

The third mistake was not knowing how and where to use the atomic bomb.

The Department of War had no comprehensive planning regarding how to use the atomic bombs to achieve the strategic goals of war – i.e. to shorten the length of war while reducing allied casualties.

Emperor Hirohito had already demonstrated he had no remorse over the high number of Japanese civilian casualties incurred after the incendiary bombing of Tokyo in March of 1945 by American bombers. Furthermore, he again demonstrated his disregard by refusing to surrender after President Truman had threatened a “prompt and utter destruction” to his country.

Bombing militarily irrelevant cities would not reduce allied casualties and killing civilians would not shorten the war since it clearly was not going to make a self-proclaimed divine emperor blink.

The fourth mistake was not sufficiently coordinating with other allied forces, mainly the Soviets.

During the Yalta conference in February of 1945, then-President Roosevelt acquired consent from Stalin to send troops to the Far East to help the Americans defeat the Japanese.  During the Potsdam conference a few months later in July, Stalin affirmed this promise to President Truman to invade Manchuria in early August.

If the American government would have made efforts to support the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, they would have quickly observed the Japanese government changing their stance regarding surrender since, by that time, the Japanese would have realized their retreat was going to be cut off and their Kwantung Army destroyed.

The fifth mistake was trying to start another war.

Instead of solely focusing on finishing the on-going war as quickly and justly as possible, the Truman administration appears to have had another priority – starting what would become the Cold War with the Soviets.  Truman had the Potsdam conference postponed for two weeks in order for the first atomic bomb testing in history to be conducted.  Then, during the conference, Truman was informed of the successful explosion. The meeting subsequently turned more confrontational.  A couple of weeks later, on July 26, the United States, the British Empire and the Republic of China issued the unconditional surrender declaration to the Japanese government. It would have been much more effective had the Soviet Union been included in the declaration.

But Truman seemed to care more about ending the war soon enough that the Soviets would take less territory from Japan, demonstrating the power of the atomic bomb to intimidate the Soviets (who would be emerging from WWII as the world’s other superpower), and keeping the Japanese imperial system intact so it could serve the same purpose as that of the Anti-Comintern Pact signed between Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire in 1936.  This would finish the current war in such a way as to usher in the cold war – a situation benefiting American capitalists whose profits had skyrocketed from war mobilization.

The third question to be asked is how did history really play out?

After having been informed of the Potsdam Declaration, urging the unconditional surrender of Japan, Emperor Hirohito did not convene any cabinet meeting on the subject of surrender.

Meanwhile, on August 6, without waiting for the incoming invasion of Manchuria by the Soviets, President Truman rushed to drop the first atomic bomb at Hiroshima, killing 100,000 Japanese, of which the absolute majority were civilians. It was hardly a military target. Unsurprisingly, Emperor Hirohito did not even bother to respond.

On August 8, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, with the mighty Red Army crossing the border into Manchuria after midnight.

The Japanese cabinet of six convened at 10:00am, August 9, ten hours after the Soviet invasion, following the traditional doctrines of war i.e. when retreat is not possible, surrender is the next step.

Unfortunately, another unnecessary bomb was dropped, this time on Nagasaki at around 11:00am, killing another 60,000 hapless civilians. Hence, the two atomic bombs were dropped in the wrong places, at the wrong times, on the wrong groups of people, for the wrong purpose.

On August 15th, Emperor Hirohito announced the surrender to the Japanese people and the Allies. Afterwards, General MacArthur exonerated the indisputable culpability of Emperor Hirohito, suggesting the emperor only had the power to end a war, but no power to start a war. And, Japan was quickly rehabilitated into an Anti-Soviet bastion.

Dropping two atomic bombs on noncombatants is horrible.  However, it possibly would have been worse if the Soviets had not invaded Manchuria on August 9, 1945. According to U.S. government documents, the Truman administration had a total of twelve atomic bombs in hand. Had Hirohito not had reason to finally surrender, there could have been a total of 12 cities destroyed and around one million Japanese, mainly civilians, killed.

All of the foregoing facts beg the question:  could Hirohito have interpreted the bombing of irrelevant civilians as a message, “Don’t worry, we won’t hurt you if you don’t surrender?” We’ll probably never know for sure, but upon closer scrutiny, the whole approach to Japan by the Truman administration doesn’t make much logical or strategic sense for the purpose of ending the war as quickly as possible with the fewest allied casualties.

One thing is for sure:  If the Americans cannot learn history in a serious and critical way, our days of being the leader of the world are numbered.

James J. Chen has had a life-long interest in history, politics, and the humanities. He has begun writing on these topics, with a particular emphasis on the the U.S.’s role in the evolution of the modern world.  He lives and practices medicine in the San Francisco Bay Area. His website address is: https://jamesjchen.wixsite.com/save-the-country.

Yesterday, the Trilateral Contact Group, which includes representatives from Ukraine, Russia and the OSCE, agreed to employ the Steinmeier Formula as a first step toward implementation of the 2015 Minsk Agreement. Russian news outlet TASS reported that each of the members signed off on the plan:

In late 2015, then-German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier put forward a plan that later became known as the “Steinmeier formula.” The plan stipulates that a special status should be granted to Donbass in accordance with the Minsk Agreements. In particular, the document envisages that Ukraine’s special law on local self-governance will take effect in certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions on a temporary basis on the day of local elections, becoming permanent after the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) issues a report on the vote’s results. The idea was endorsed at the Normandy Four meeting in Paris on October 2, 2015, and has been known as the Steinmeier formula since.

Bloomberg reported that a Normandy Four format meeting would be arranged for the near future according to Ukrainian President Zelensky who made some additional public comments after announcement of the breakthrough:

But Zelenskiy has said special status for Donbas won’t include changes to Ukraine’s constitution, which lays out goals for membership of the EU and NATO. The Kremlin opposes its neighbor’s plans for Western integration, which sparked tensions between the two former allies back in 2013.

Special-status legislation will be drafted by parliament in “close cooperation and consultation with society,” Zelenskiy said. “No red lines will be crossed in the new law. That’s why there will be no capitulation.”

This is not consistent with the parameters of the agreement that Germany and France hammered out at Minsk as reported on at the time by Der Spiegel, which indicated that the DPR and LPR would have a veto over whether Kiev could join NATO. I’m having trouble imagining that Russia would go along with any agreement that does not include a block on NATO membership for Ukraine.

But, of course, Zelensky has to take this stance for domestic political reasons. Although surveys show that Ukrainians in general want the conflict in the east resolved, the dangerous segment of ultra-nationalists, who gained disproportionate influence by serving as the muscle for the 2014 coup and subsequent civil war, will oppose any concessions to the Donbas rebels. And, given how wet behind the ears Zelensky is, I don’t know what possible leverage he could use to try to temper the ultra-nationalists and the trouble they can potentially cause, especially in light of the fact that the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is still essentially controlled by them.

Although I’m glad that talks are moving forward, I’m skeptical of them ultimately being successful in the near future.

************************************************************************

According to a recent article by the Carnegie Moscow Center, Russia is enjoying a budget surplus and, in turn, its National Wealth Fund is flush with rubles:

The main debate in Russia’s economic bloc right now is how best to spend the super profits from oil exports that are building up in the NWF. In accordance with budget rules, oil revenues in excess of $40 per barrel are channeled into the fund, and the threshold of 7 percent of GDP above which the law allows the treasure chest to be opened up will be passed by the end of this year. That means that in 2020, the treasury will have almost 2 trillion rubles ($31 billion) in its coffers that hasn’t been allocated for anything, and in 2021, if oil prices have not decreased drastically, more than 4 trillion rubles, according to calculations by the Finance Ministry. 

It goes on to say that, since allocations have already been made in the budget for government-sanctioned investments in health, education and infrastructure, this fund is the one remaining source of potential infusions of money to the private sector. According to the authors, this translates into the last possible source for corrupt Russian fat cats. That commentary didn’t interest me, but the discussion of the wealth fund in general and conjecture as to what it might be spent on – if indeed it’s opened up for spending at all – got me to thinking. When I researched the Russian economy for Chapter 10 of my forthcoming book, it was clear that the financial system in Russia is still limited and that this has led to little available credit to small and medium sized businesses, known as SME’s. Why couldn’t some of this money in the national wealth fund be used to create a mechanism for providing loans to SME’s?

Perhaps someone who is more well versed in economics than me could provide an explanation for why this wouldn’t work. Or maybe someone else who understands some vagaries of the Russian political system better could explain why this idea wouldn’t go over. To me, it seems like a resource available that could potentially serve as a solution to a problem.

************************************************************************

As many readers have probably heard, climate youth activist Greta Thunberg traveled to the U.S. and spoke before the UN General Assembly last week. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that the 16-year old ripped the world leaders in the audience a new one regarding their negligence in being responsible stewards of the environment that her generation will be inheriting.

Climate change and extreme weather have been having a major impact on Russia recently. And, although the country has not been a hotbed of activism on the issue, the teenager has been inspiring some Russian youth who recognize the urgency of the problem, including a young member of the Duma. In fact, Vasily Vlasov, a member of the parliament’s Natural Resources Committee, has invited Thunberg to speak before the Duma. According to the Moscow Times:

“I invite you to give a speech to Russian youth in the State Duma on any date convenient for you,” lawmaker Vasily Vlasov wrote to Thunberg, according to excerpts of his letter published by the state-run RIA Novosti news agency Tuesday.

Vlasov, 24, a senior member of the Duma’s Natural Resources Committee, highlighted his youth in the letter sent to the Swedish embassy…

“We as the younger generation must not remain silent when it comes to our future, and we won’t allow ourselves to be condemned to extinction,” Vlasov wrote….

The Natural Resources and Environment Ministry this month acknowledged that Russia, the world’s fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, is heating faster than the rest of the world. While the country is in the process of ratifying the 2015 Paris climate accord, outside trackers say Russia still lags behind the rest of the world in climate action implementation.

************************************************************************

I’ve had the manuscript of my book reviewed by some beta readers and will be working on some revisions next week. After that, it can go to the copy editor. I’m probably looking at a winter publication date. I will, of course, provide updates as the process moves along. Thank you to everyone for your support.

Additionally, I’m working on an interview with a Russia scholar, which should tentatively be published in the next couple of weeks. So that I can focus on those two projects, I will be having a guest post next week.

Nancy Pelosi recently announced that an impeachment inquiry would be initiated against President Trump over a recent phone call he had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which he discussed several domestic political issues, including the Crowdstrike report and a brief mention of the Mueller investigation. Trump also brought up the Ukrainian prosecutor who was fired in 2016 at the behest of then-vice president Joe Biden and asked Zelensky to look into what Biden had done with respect to the prosecutor.

In 2014, Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, had been appointed to the Board of Directors of Burisma – a Ukrainian natural gas company that had been under investigation for corruption – and was being compensated at $50,000 a month for his position. No one with two brain cells to rub together believes that Hunter – who had no qualifications or experience for this position – would have gotten it if his father hadn’t been Joe Biden who happened to be serving as the equivalent of a colonial administrator over Ukraine as the west had just supported a coup in that country only months before. This is nepotism and nepotism is a form of political corruption. If this had been Trump and one of his children, the same people who are arguing with me on Twitter that Biden didn’t do anything wrong would be singing a different tune.

Joe Biden has admitted that he threatened the Ukrainian leadership with the withholding of $1 billion in aid if they didn’t fire the prosecutor in power at the time. It’s possible that part of of his motivation in doing so was to torpedo investigation into the company for which his son was currently serving on the Board.

What Trump did in this phone call was inappropriate – requesting help from a foreign power to help him get dirt on a political rival. A censure by Congress would be appropriate. But, for the following reasons, I believe impeachment is not.

First, there is a credibility gap and Trump will easily be able to use it to his advantage. It has been clear from the moment that Trump was elected that most of the political class, including the Democratic Party establishment, the establishment media, and a segment of the educated professional class was repulsed. They have subsequently engaged in a series of actions to try to deny Trump’s legitimacy by accusing him of colluding with a foreign power to win his position and teaming up with the notorious intelligence community to engineer a case for impeachment. For over two years the American public was subjected to a divisive farce in the hopes of impeaching Trump as essentially a traitor. The whole thing backfired as the Mueller report was forced to acknowledge that there was no evidence for collusion and Mueller’s personal testimony before Congress amounted to what journalist Matt Taibbi described as the equivalent of a guy “wandering in traffic.”

Now, less than two months after that debacle ended, we have another dubious attempt to initiate an impeachment process. While Trump did do something inappropriate here, the Democrats do not have clean hands with respect to similar kinds of election shenanigans as Ukrainian government officials have admitted actively helping the Clinton campaign in 2016. Where is the outrage and sanctimonious hand-wringing about this?

All of this makes it appear that the Democratic Party establishment is simply deadset on pursuing impeachment in a vindictive manner against Trump. Trump will, in turn, be able to spin this to his base as the following: “These people couldn’t beat me at the ballot box in 2016 and they are afraid they won’t be able to beat me at the ballot box in 2020, so they have to keep trying to impeach me.”

It’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that there will not be sufficient votes in the Republican-controlled Senate to convict Trump and force him from office. So, it’s hard to see what the point of this whole exercise is, especially considering that the inappropriate behavior in question is relatively minor compared to many other transgressions.

This leads me to my second point. Lest impeachment simply be turned into a partisan weapon to go after inappropriate behavior that can be found by politicians in both parties – including presidents – it needs to be reserved for the most egregious crimes. War crimes or assassinating an American without due process of law are two examples that would rise to such a level. But Nancy Pelosi herself is on video in 2006 “pledging” that impeachment was off the table for George W. Bush in the case of the Iraq war.

So, according to Nancy Pelosi, if a president starts an illegal war based on lies which leads to the killing of hundreds of thousands (or even more than a million, depending on which estimates you look at) and the destabilization of an entire region, impeachment will not be considered. Period. But if a president goes after one of her party’s leaders in an inappropriate manner, then the impeachment option will be used.

Let that sink in for a moment.

If impeachment is not reserved for the most egregious crimes then – as analyst Kim Iverson has noted – the American people will simply view it as a message from the political class: “you made the wrong choice and we’re going to step in and fix it for you.”

Don’t be surprised if this whole affair backfires when Trump is not convicted or removed from office, leaving his base fired up and Trump rubbing it in Democrats’ faces that their extra-electoral tricks to effectively overturn the 2016 election results have been a failure. In the meantime, it will have served as another lengthy distraction away from emphasis on real concrete issues that candidates like Sanders, Warren, Gabbard and Yang want to focus on while the media and Democratic establishment use the impeachment circus to suck all the air out of the room during debates and news coverage.

Bottom line: Instead of focusing on partisan Kabuki theater, the Democrats need to be focused on nominating a strong candidate who can defeat Trump in 2020 and come into office with a substantive policy mandate. Unless, of course, they’re not truly interested in beating Trump with such a candidate.

**Below is an in-depth interview with Aaron Mate regarding this latest impeachment imbroglio on the Jimmy Dore show:

British whistleblower and former ambassador to Uzbekistan, turned writer, Craig Murray has reported an important ruling by the European Court of Human Rights with respect to the case of Sergei Magnitsky, an associate of financier Bill Browder, who died in a Russian jail years ago.

In a September 16th blog post, Murray reported the following:

The conscientious judges of the European Court of Human Rights published a judgement a fortnight ago which utterly exploded the version of events promulgated by Western governments and media in the case of the late Mr Magnitskiy. Yet I can find no truthful report of the judgement in the mainstream media at all.

The myth is that Magnitskiy was an honest rights campaigner and accountant who discovered corruption by Russian officials and threatened to expose it, and was consequently imprisoned on false charges and then tortured and killed. A campaign over his death was led by his former business partner, hedge fund manager Bill Browder, who wanted massive compensation for Russian assets allegedly swindled from their venture. The campaign led to the passing of the Magnitskiy Act in the United States, providing powers for sanctioning individuals responsible for human rights abuses, and also led to matching sanctions being developed by the EU.

However the European Court of Human Rights has found, in judging a case brought against Russia by the Magnitskiy family, that the very essence of this story is untrue. They find that there was credible evidence that Magnitskiy was indeed engaged in tax fraud, in conspiracy with Browder, and he was rightfully charged. The ECHR also found there was credible evidence that Magnitskiy was indeed a flight risk so he was rightfully detained. And most crucially of all, they find that there was credible evidence of tax fraud by Magnitskiy and action by the authorities “years” before he started to make counter-accusations of corruption against officials investigating his case.

Murray has often been a voice of reason when it comes to all of the mud slung at the Russian government, much of which turns out to be false or at least very questionable in terms of what Washington and the establishment media want us to believe: Russiagate, the audacious attempted murder of an ex-spy and his daughter in Britain with poison that has unique and notorious qualities except that the poison in this instance didn’t act in the usual unique and notorious manner, and the big bad Russian government harassed and locked up an innocent “lawyer” who worked for the long-suffering Bill Browder.

And I for one am grateful for Murray’s courage and sharp analysis. However, if one reads Murray’s piece in its entirety, they will also read this paragraph:

Where the Court did find in favour of Magnitskiy’s family is that he had been deprived of sufficient medical attention and subject to brutality while in jail. I have no doubt this is true. Conditions in Russian jails are a disgrace, as is the entire Russian criminal justice system. There are few fair trials and conviction rates remain well over 90% – the judges assume that if you are being prosecuted, the state wants you locked up, and they comply. This is one of many areas where the Putin era will be seen in retrospect as lacking in meaningful and needed domestic reform. Sadly what happened to Magnitskiy on remand was not special mistreatment. It is what happens in Russian prisons.

Now, as I’ve acknowledged in other posts, I’m not suggesting that Russian jails are nice places or that Russia doesn’t have any problems in its criminal justice system. However, Murray’s characterization that the entire criminal justice system in Russia is a “disgrace,” that judges pretty much rubber stamp the government’s charges in locking everyone up, and that Putin has done little to nothing in terms of reform of the justice system in Russia is just plain false.

As part of my research for my forthcoming book, I looked into the state of the justice system in Russia during the Putin era and found many important reforms made since 2000. I published an excerpt in a post earlier this year. Here are some relevant points from that post:

The 1993 constitution guarantees the presumption of innocence for criminal defendants as well as the right to counsel (Henderson 2011).  During Putin’s first two terms as president, he introduced or oversaw the implementation of the rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury, and increased rights to exculpatory evidence (Petro 2018).  After certain reforms made by Putin to the criminal code, acquittal rates in bench trials (only heard by a judge) doubled and acquittal rates in jury trials tripled, contributing to a 40 percent drop in the overall  incarceration rate and a 95 percent drop in the juvenile incarceration rate since 2001 (Petro 2018). 

He also introduced the role of bailiffs and Justices of the Peace (JP’s) into the system (Petro 2018).

JP’s act as judges in the lowest tier of courts and preside over approximately 75 percent of civil cases and 45 percent of criminal cases – most of the latter are resolved through plea bargaining (Hendley 2017). University of Wisconsin Professor Kathryn Hendley concluded in her years-long study of Russia’s court system, Everyday Law in Russia, that JP’s demonstrate independence – in other words, they base their decisions on the written law – in the vast majority of cases before them.  Exceptions involve the very small percentage of cases that are politically sensitive, particularly to the Kremlin.  In these instances the JP’s will often go along with power as a matter of being socialized into the system rather than being overtly told to do so….

Hendley also found that overall, in civil and administrative cases, the Russian government often loses.

“State agencies are frequent litigants in civil cases, both as plaintiffs and defendants.  Both in JP courts and other courts, they are more likely to lose these cases than are private actors.  Their victory in administrative cases involving private citizens, such as traffic violations and fines for noncompliance with various laws, is far from automatic.  The same is true in the business setting.  Economic actors’ challenges to their treatment by the tax and other regulatory authorities are frequently successful (Hendley 2017).”

Court rulings in civil cases favoring private plaintiffs over the government occur at a rate of approximately 70 percent (Petro 2018). 

Furthermore, during Putin’s second term, courts ruled that individuals arrested without merit must be compensated and compensation limits for government negligence were struck down, making it more meaningful when the Russian government comes out on the losing end of such cases (Petro 2018). 

Foreign businesses operating in Russia have benefited from the improved state of the legal system.  Lawsuits on behalf of foreign businesses have tripled since 2014 and favorable judgments have increased from 59 percent to 83 percent (Petro 2018).  Many Russians are reluctant to take a dispute to court, citing time, inconvenience, and “the difficulty of proving one’s case.” But as incomes increase and the traditional informal methods of resolving disputes become less relevant, more Russians are utilizing the court system, increasing from one million in 1998 to over seventeen million in 2016 (Petro 2018).  Hendley found many of these Russians to be generally satisfied with their experiences, which largely take place in the JP system, regardless of whether they won or lost.  80 percent of Russians find JP’s to be “well trained and competent” with only 10 percent believing their JP was biased (Hendley 2017). 

 (Sources are listed in the original post. )

People are entitled to their opinions about Russia and Putin, but they should be based on credible and current information, not misinformation or outdated information. I’ve sadly come to expect whopping inaccuracy from the establishment media about Russia, but find it particularly disappointing when it’s perpetuated by someone like Murray.