All posts by natyliesb

Hamilton College Levitt Poll: Russian Elite 2016 Survey – Perspectives on Foreign & Domestic Policy

2 Comments

Entrance to Red Square Moscow

(Entrance to Red Square, Moscow; photo by Natylie S. Baldwin, 2015)

Some of the most interesting findings of the 2016 poll of Russian elites, including those at ministerial positions in the executive branch of Russian government, Russian media figures, members of the Duma, and major business people:

  • More elites – 32.1% – regard the inability to solve domestic problems as the “utmost threat” to Russia’s security than any other threat, including the growth of the U.S. military at 7.4%.Terrorism is ranked second on the list, with 22.2% rating it at “utmost threat.” Threats to security posed by border conflicts with the states of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) declined and reached an all-time low in 2016, with only 4.5% of Russian elites stating that a border conflict with a CIS state was the “utmost threat” to Russia’s security.
  • Less than 10% of elites would choose the United States as a coalition partner. Asked which coalition partner they would choose – the European Union, China or the United States – 33.7% of those surveyed answered that none of the options would be suitable.
  • For the first time since 1993, more elites report that a country’s military, and not economic, potential is decisive in international relations. In 2016 a majority of elites (52.3%) agreed with the statement that “military force will always ultimately decide everything in international relations.”

The full report and summary is available here:

 

Foremost Russia Expert Stephen F. Cohen Interviewed by John Batchelor: Is War with Russia Possible?

3 Comments

“Finally, Cohen reports, an influential faction in Kremlin politics has long insisted, behind closed doors, that the US-led West is preparing an actual hot war against Russia, and that Putin has not prepared the country adequately at home or abroad. During the past two weeks, this struggle over policy has erupted in public with three prominent members of the Russian elite charging, sometimes implicitly but also explicitly, that Putin has supported his “fifth column” government headed by Prime Minister Dmitrii Medvedev. They are not seeking to remove Putin; there is no alternative to him and his public approval ratings, exceeding 80 percent, are too high. But they do want his government replaced and their own policies adopted. Those policies include a Soviet-style mobilization of the economy for war, and more proactive military policies abroad, especially in Ukraine. Cohen wonders whether US and NATO policymakers are sleepwalking toward war with Russia or whether they actively seek it. ”

 

Please listen to this important interview  at:  https://audioboom.com/boos/4518912-nato-guns-along-the-russian-frontier-stephen-f-cohen-nyu-princeton-eastwestaccord-com

Building Civil Society in Russia – An Example from Krasnodar

1 Comment

(Pedestrian thoroughfare in downtown Krasnodar, Russia; photo by Natylie S. Baldwin)

Krasnodar, meaning “beautiful gift”, is located in the Black Sea region of southern Russia.  After suffering a devastating level of damage during the Second World War, Krasnodar showed its independence and resourcefulness when it eschewed financial assistance from Moscow and embarked on its own rebuilding efforts.

Formerly a provincial town in a largely agricultural region, Krasnodar has recently evolved into a cosmopolitan city that is the 8th largest in the country.  It saw a such a high rate of civic construction in 2014 that it surpassed even Moscow.  As a consequence of the challenges presented by this rapid development, Krasnodar is showing its spirit of resourcefulness once again with the rise of the Public Council as an independent citizen initiative to make the city government’s process more responsive to the needs and desires of the people living there.

 Continue reading here

How Crimeans See Ukraine Crisis

A map showing Crimea (in beige) and its proximity to both the Ukrainian mainland and Russia.

(A map showing Crimea (in beige) and its proximity to both the Ukrainian mainland and Russia.)

We had boarded the bus that would transport us from the gates of Moscow’s Vnukovo airport to the plane waiting on the tarmac to fly us to Simferopol, Crimea, when a friendly blonde in her late 30’s asked us in accented English if we were from “The States”?

When we answered that we were, she told us she currently lived in Texas but was going to visit relatives in Crimea. As we chatted more and my travel mate and I explained our reason for going there – to see Crimea for ourselves and find out from the people living there what they thought about the Ukraine war and the peninsula’s reunification with Russia – it became apparent that this lady had a few things she wanted to get off her chest.

“You cannot separate Ukraine from Russia, there is too much culture and history together,” she said.  Choking up on her words, she continued, “American people are good people – I have many friends in the U.S. – but their government leaders are not because they interfere too much in other places. I worry about Hillary [Clinton], you know. When [Libyan leader Muammar] Gaddafi was killed, she said ‘We came, we saw, he died. Ha ha.’ What kind of leader is that? Is she going to be the next president?”

She felt that, due to the violence on the Maidan and Washington’s interference in the form of Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland’s manipulations, Putin’s intervention in Crimea was correct:  “Putin did the right thing for Crimea, he is a good leader.”

When we landed in Simferopol, it was clear that the small airport had been recently renovated as everything was clean and freshly painted. After haggling down the price to something reasonable with the proprietor of a taxi service, we loaded ourselves into a cab in which stale cigarette smoke hung thick in the air.

My travel mate, who spoke functional Russian, asked the driver what he thought about Crimea’s reunification with Russia. He replied in broken English, “Historically and ethnically we are Russian, so it is better to be with Russia than Ukraine.” He acknowledged, however, that there were still many problems to be addressed and it would take time, but with Russia they now had hope.

His sentiments would be echoed throughout our stay in Crimea. Tatyana, a professional tour guide from Yalta, told us the next day that, in terms of road repair and airport renovation, there had been more infrastructure investment in one year under Russian governance than there had been in all the 23 years with post-Soviet Ukraine.

Looking around Simferopol, more such investment would obviously be needed. The roads and buildings had not been sufficiently maintained and it gave the place an air of being run down. Alongside that, however, were parks and trees, roads filled with people in cars and packed mini-buses during commute hours, and parents walking on sidewalks clutching the hands of their small children. Everyone was dressed in the typical Western attire one would see in the U.S. and most young people fingered smart phones.

On the bus ride from Simferopol to Yalta, there were many small houses in various stages of disrepair and frozen construction. My travel mate, who had been going in and out of Russia since the 1980s, remarked that it looked like the Soviet era.

As we approached the Yalta coastline, however, the lush trees and sparkling blue water that reflected a sunlit sky, emerged from the mountainous journey, dissipating the gloom. We toured Livadia Palace, the seasonal home of the czars from Alexander II to Nicholas II. It was also the location of the famous Yalta Conference of 1945 where Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin met as WWII was winding down.

Afterwards, we walked down a lane littered with lovely and well-cared for “stray” cats that now took up residence on the grounds of the palace. Then we came to a small two-story restaurant where we had lunch with Tatyana, who articulated the feelings of many Crimeans about the Maidan protests that rocked Kiev in early 2014:

“No one asked us if we wanted to go along with Maidan. There are Russians as well as people who are a mix of Russian and Ukrainian here. We are not against Ukraine as many of us have relatives there, but Maidan was not simply a spontaneous protest. We are aware of the phone call with Victoria Nuland and [U.S. Ambassador] Geoffrey Pyatt, we saw the photos of her with [opposition leaders] Yatsenyuk, Tiagnibok [leader of Svoboda, the neo-fascist group that was condemned by the EU in 2012], and Klitschko on television. We saw the images of her handing out cookies to the protesters.”

We returned to Simferopol that evening and talked to a group of local small business entrepreneurs. They spoke of the many disruptions that the political upheaval with Ukraine and the subsequent reunification had caused. Kiev stopped paying salaries and pensions and even cut off electricity, which prompted Russia to provide generators to hospitals and other establishments where there were significant numbers of people in need.

In fact, Crimea had been dependent upon Ukraine for 70 percent of its power since reunification. Consequently, Russia is in the process of laying a power cable beneath the Kerch Strait from the Krasnodar region, which is now partially operational and will be fully operational by summer of 2016.

In the meantime, Russia had been paying Ukraine $211 million to supply Crimea with energy through the end of 2015. In what is perceived by many to be retaliation for seceding, Ukraine had seriously cut energy supplies to Crimea without notice numerous times throughout 2014 andraised prices by 15 percent. Similar issues with water supply have also been reported.

“Kiev claims they want us back, but then they alienate us even more with these kinds of actions,” said one of the entrepreneurs, shaking his head.

Continue reading here

 

Vladimir Putin: Neither a Monster Nor a Messiah

4 Comments

Russian President Vladimir Putin taking the presidential oath at his third inauguration ceremony on May 7, 2012. (Russian government photo)

(Vladimir Putin takes presidential oath of office, May 7, 2012; Russian government photo)

Many westerners are understandably disillusioned with Western policies and culture (largely led by the US), both of which have degenerated. The former into unabashed imperialism, militarism (both at home and abroad), and oligarchy and the latter into crass consumerism, sexual exhibitionism and social alienation. Consequently, many of these people are looking for something.

Enter into this picture, Russian president Vladimir Putin — pointing out the tragic folly of western policies (again, largely led by Washington) on the world stage in public forums, countering said folly with a combination of diplomacy and limited military actions in reaction to western provocations and general mess-making.  Simultaneously, in the search for social glue, Putin has encouraged a re-discovery of Russia’s pre-Soviet cultural heritage, with the Orthodox Church playing a significant role and Russians’ social conservatism acknowledged.  All this reflects the concept of boundaries, rootedness and order where the west seems to have long-forgotten each in the arrogant belief it doesn’t need them.

There is also a strong sense of duty and loyalty that Putin personally values — sometimes to an extreme.  These qualities make him attractive to western conservatives, despite the fact that in many ways he is a statist.

In previous writings, I have debunked a number of myths propagated by the western mainstream media that portray Putin as some archetypal monster-villain, Hitler-Stalin-Al Capone-and KGB assassin all rolled into one slipper.

But in my perusal of a wide range of alternative media sites and their comments sections, I have observed another trend, with a segment of people who are viewing Putin as some kind of Messiah figure. Whether right, left or libertarian, these people are justifiably fed up with American empire, propaganda, and the resulting detritus.  However, just like the demonizers, some of these people lack nuance and complexity in their analyses and often have little understanding of Russian culture, political history, and the current complex dynamics in the Kremlin which all factor into who Putin is and his decision-making.

I hate to break it to these people, but Putin is not looking to save the world.

Putin is, first and foremost, a Russian patriot and pragmatist who’s top priorities are the security and stability of Russia as well as improving Russians’ living standards.  Anyone who has an understanding of Russian geography and history immediately comprehends these priorities and why they resonate with the Russian people, who overwhelmingly believe that Putin is a good leader, whatever his flaws admittedly may be.

Putin wants to stop Washington’s regime change madness in Ukraine and the Middle East because it is seriously destabilizing an area that is in Russia’s backyard and, if left unchecked, has the potential to destabilize Russia directly in the future.  To the extent that Putin’s policies countering the Washington empire may lead to a more peaceful and stable world in the future, it is an ancillary benefit and not necessarily Putin’s primary goal.

Putin believes that a multi-polar world with more equitable development and decision-making will provide the conditions in which his three priorities for Russia have the best chance of being fulfilled.

Putin has a history of trying to achieve his real goals using diplomacy and accommodation with the west that is meant to be reciprocal of each party’s interests.  For example, after the 9/11 attacks, Putin was the first world leader to call president Bush to offer his condolences and support.  His reasoning was 2-fold: one, he saw the U.S. and Russia as having a mutual interest in fighting Islamist terrorism; second, he knew that he had a tall order in successfully addressing the many profound problems facing Russia at the time, which included a cratered economy, massive crime and corruption, and the worst mortality crisis since WWII.  He would need to put as much time, energy and resources as he could muster into the project of rehabilitating his country — which meant not wasting precious time, energy and resources in unnecessary conflict with the world’s lone superpower.  Going against the advice of most of his security team, he provided logistical and intelligence support as well as access to temporary military bases on behalf of the U.S. operation in Afghanistan.

In return for this assistance, Putin received the equivalent of a swift kick in the shins from the Neocon Bush administration in the form of a unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to pursue a “missile defense shield” in 2002 and the accession of 7 more nations of Eastern Europe into NATO in 2004.

Seemingly undeterred, in 2008, Putin ordered the Russian Foreign Ministry to draft a proposal that Dmitry Medvedev took to Brussels, outlining a security plan that would cover all of the Euro-atlantic community and Russia, obviating the need for NATO’s continued existence, much less its expansion.

The preamble states that:

…the use of force or the threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other way inconsistent with the goals and principles of the Charter of the United Nations is inadmissible in their mutual relations, as well as international relations in general.

It also reiterates the intent to cooperatively address any security concerns that may arise among members:

Intending to build effective cooperation mechanisms that could be promptly activated with a view to solving issues or differences that might arise, addressing concerns and adequately responding to challenges and threats in the security sphere.

The body of the document contains mechanisms for how dealing with security concerns or breaches of security could be handled.  This proposal was sent to the leaders of relevant nations as well as the heads of EU, NATO and OSCE, emphasizing that Russia was open to suggestions and negotiation on the plan.

Putin’s pursuit of these kinds of policies is less an example of him donning some hippie beads while singing songs from Jesus Christ Superstar, and more a pragmatic realization that, if successfully implemented, they would better enable him to protect and develop his country in a way that is consistent with its particular geography, history and culture.

Of course, Putin and Medvedev heard crickets in response to their proposal.

Not long afterward, Mikheil Saakashvili, egged on by elements in Washington, staged a military incursion into South Ossetia, killing Russian peacekeepers and prompting a military smackdown by Russia.  Five years later, the EU recklessly tried to pressure Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich to sign an Association Agreement that contained terms and consequences that would be unwise (to say the least) for the leader of an already poor and divided nation on Russia’s border to agree to.  Again, elements from Washington egged on violent and provocative actions; then, subsequently, pissed and moaned about the more forceful and predictable reaction from Russia, conveniently forgetting the diplomatic gestures for cooperation that had been offered that could potentially prevent and/or resolve these problems in everyone’s interests.

With much of western leadership so irrational and drunk on power, westerners cannot be blamed for admiring an intelligent and pragmatic leader who does not eschew the art of diplomacy on behalf of his country’s interests.