Russia

 

The West may have stood by and watched Russia chop off Georgia’s breakaway regions, but it prevented Putin from applying the same treatment to Mikhail Saakashvili’s nether ones.

A transcript of a conversation released today shows that the embattled Georgian president, dubbed by Britain’s Daily Telegraph “the man who lost it all”, came perilously close to living up this label in the most painfully literal of senses.

Nicolas Sarkozy saved the President of Georgia from being hanged “by the balls” — a threat made last summer by Vladimir Putin, according to revelations from Jean-David Levitte, Mr Sarkozy’s chief diplomatic adviser, to the London Times.

Putin is no stranger to toilet-threats, having once memorably declared: “If we catch [the Chechen rebels] in the toilet, we will rub them out in the outhouse.” But this particular exchange is a gem:

“I am going to hang Saakashvili by the balls,” Mr Putin declared.

Mr Sarkozy thought he had misheard. “Hang him?” — he asked. “Why not?” Mr Putin replied. “The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein.”

Mr Sarkozy, using the familiar tu, tried to reason with him: “Yes but do you want to end up like [President] Bush?” Mr Putin was briefly lost for words, then said: “Ah — you have scored a point there.”

Though Sarkozy would like to be seen as the man who dissuaded Putin from conquering all of Georgia, the ultimate credit for averting major war must go to the radioactive legacy of George Bush.

(In fact, parents of the world would be wise to heed Sarko’s technique: “Eat your greens/clean your room/do your homework or you’ll end up like Bush!”)

For now, Saakashvili’s erm, sack, seems to be safe. However, this afternoon, “more than 10,000 opponents of President Mikheil Saakashvili rallied in Tbilisi on Friday in the first major show of discontent since Georgia’s crushing defeat in an August war with Russia”, reports the Moscow News.

In addition to blaming him for the secession of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, protesters, some carrying signs saying “Stop Misha, Stop Russia” denounced his crackdowns on civil society and press freedoms.

Saakashvili should not get too comfortable: a coalition of Georgian nationalists avenging his territorial losses and liberals angered by his authoritarianism might just carry out Putin’s wish themselves.

Who says Russia has no soft power?

Well, Robert Amsterdam, for one. He has argued that the Russian invasion of Georgia illustrated its woeful loss of any sort of diplomatic legitimacy.

Outside of polite society, it has been a point beaten to death by such brownshirted bloggers as la Russophobe:  “Russia’s need to rely on physical force obviously shows that even in regard to a tiny country like Georgia (population less than half the city of Moscow), Russia lacks any other way to deal with a crisis”.

Unfortunately, these sentiments have got the upper hand since the Georgian war, but it was not always so. For example, in a 2006 report for the Brookings Institution, Fiona Hill wrote that

It is by no means assured that Russia’s increasing soft power will be used to positive effect. But the prospect is clearly there—and should be encouraging Russia’s current leadership to chart a new regional policy for itself in Eurasia.

Such optimism seemed quaint during the Georgian War, but as the smoke clears, it now seems that Russian soft power might have been strengthened, not weakened, by the war.

According to the BBC, today’s signing of an agreement to resolve the status of another disputed region - Nagorno-Karabakh - by Armenia and Azerbaijan in Moscow, may have been spurned on by Moscow’s ‘hard power’ actions in August:
“Correspondents say Russia’s brief war with Georgia in August has given impetus to international efforts to resolve disputes in the Caucasus, a region where Moscow is seeking greater influence”

But is it too late to change the established narrative?

The BBC reports that “that Georgia may have committed war crimes in its attack on its breakaway region of South Ossetia in August”.

Yet the old line about one-sided Russian aggression persists in strength, and spreads to Eastern Europe.

 

With Russian and American top brass talking again, it looks like the two countries have kissed and made up following the whole Georgia thing.

Or, if you’re US ambassador Beylre, kissed and made out: not only did he recently deny any US intention to punish Russia, but also put a nice gloss on the affair: “There is always an inclination to look at the dark side of things during these periods of strain. I think that sometimes obscures some of the very positive aspects of the joint work that we are doing together in a very positive way”.

Even the New York Times, that pre-eminent peddler of the ‘Evil-Russia-Crushes-Tiny-Democratic-Georgia’ narrative at the time of the conflict, has pulled off a spectacular 180 with a recent article questioning Georgia’s democratic credentials. (ESSENTIAL READING ALERT: Mark Ames wrote a typically thoughtful and spot on think piece on this in The Nation).

So, apart from a friendly / passive aggressive nuclear showdown in Europe and two new countries in the Caucasus, it’s back to normal, right?

Nearly. The most important rejigging has been very subtle. As this article in the NYT points out, on the fence countries like Azerbaijan have begun to move closer to Russia to avoid Georgia’s fate. Moreover, Georgia now maintains a somewhat toxic status, in that neighbouring countries are loath to get too close to it and incur Russian wrath.

So two months on, it seems Georgia is the only loser. America has moved on, Russia has increased its influence, and its neighbours have ostracised it.

This is the price, in the words of an Azeri commentator Rasim Musabayov, of having “a foreign policy that goes against your geography”.

Ahhh! That’s better!

NOW FOR THE RUSSIA NEWS ROUNDUP!

1) Not to gloat or anything, but it seems the Brookings Institution has finally started reading FPA Russia Blog. Only a few days after we exposed the absurdity of Anders Aslund’s disingenuous insinuation that Russia’s economic downturn was somehow caused by the Georgia war, their Clifford G Gaddy has pronounced the definitive word on the matter, blasting Aslund out of the water. Good job!

2) Russia is everywhere in the headlines!

The BBC’s Bridget Kendall delves into the “Machiavellian power struggles, dark paranoia of security chiefs and long fingers of corruption” to explore the strange co-leadership of Putin and Medvedev.

3)  Guardian hack Luke Harding asks whether, after Ossetia and Abkhazia, Ukrainian penninsula of Crimea is next. This is very, very unlikely.

4.  Very interesting article in the Washington Post by Philip Pan, about how Putin admonished Ekho Moskvy, one of the last remaining liberal indepenent media outlets, for alleged pro-Georgian bias in the reporting. This has got them all very worried. Hopefully it will not result in their shut down.

5.  Speaking of media bias: is CNN about to be kicked out of Russia?

Exiledonline has an equally disturbing story about how CNN taped a long exclusive interview with Putin, but only aired a few seconds worth of clips. The reason? Putin came across as too reasonable, says author Yasha Levine, and this wouldn’t have gelled with the Putin-as-Bad Guy construct over at Time Warner. And now, he’s apparently so pissed at this ‘censorship’ that he is considering kicking the whole channel out of his country.  Totally un-ironically, too!

 

In a refreshing turn of events, Vladimir Putin has reportedly saved the lives of several journalists during a trip to a Siberian conservation area for the endangered Amur tiger (in accordance with the Lomonosov-Lavoisier Law of Conservation of Media, an opposition website owner in secessionist Ingushetia was ordered killed shortly afterwards).

When a tiger escaped from a trap and ran in the direction of the press pack, Putin is said to have shot it with a tranquiliser gun. Then, in a clear signal to Nato and Georgia, the Prime Minister stripped down to his camouflage underwear and proceeded to tear out and eat its still beating heart.

Well, not exactly; but he might as well have done, judging by the British headlines:

“Putin shoots a tiger as Europe grapples with Russian aggression” screams the Guardian, and then asks: “Was it an openly hostile signal of power play to the west? Or just another incarnation of Putin’s oft-demonstrated masculinity?”

“Vladimir Putin ’shoots’ tiger, dismisses EU leaders”, declares the Times, adding that “the Russian Prime Minister – shown in new macho-style pictures apparently tranquilising a tiger – said that any attempts at severing relations would be hampered by the self-interest of European nations”.

In fact, histrionics aside, this has been a big week for Russian diplomacy: President Medvedev spelt out the 5 principles of his new foreign policy vision. The following is the BBC’s Paul Reynolds’s fine summary; his article is also worth reading for its good commentary.

1. International law

“Russia recognises the primacy of the basic principles of international law, which define relations between civilised nations. It is in the framework of these principles, of this concept of international law, that we will develop our relations with other states.”

2. Multi-polar world

“The world should be multi-polar. Unipolarity is unacceptable, domination is impermissible. We cannot accept a world order in which all decisions are taken by one country, even such a serious and authoritative country as the United States of America. This kind of world is unstable and fraught with conflict.”

3. No isolation

“Russia does not want confrontation with any country; Russia has no intention of isolating itself. We will develop, as far as possible, friendly relations both with Europe and with the United State of America, as well as with other countries of the world.”

4. Protect citizens

“Our unquestionable priority is to protect the life and dignity of our citizens, wherever they are. We will also proceed from this in pursuing our foreign policy. We will also protect the interest of our business community abroad. And it should be clear to everyone that if someone makes aggressive forays, he will get a response.”

5. Spheres of influence

“Russia, just like other countries in the world, has regions where it has its privileged interests. In these regions, there are countries with which we have traditionally had friendly cordial relations, historically special relations. We will work very attentively in these regions and develop these friendly relations with these states, with our close neighbours.”

Asked if these “priority regions” were those that bordered on Russia he replied: “Certainly the regions bordering [on Russia], but not only them.”

And he stated: “As regards the future, it depends not just on us. It also depends on our friends, our partners in the international community. They have a choice.”

Of course, these postulates are nothing new. The principles of Multipolarity and the idea of Russia’s Monroe Doctrine in the so-called Near Abroad (the former Soviet republics) were first advanced about a decade ago by Yevgueny Primakov. At the time, around the allied bombing of Yugoslavia, Russia made a lot of bluster regarding Nato encroachment, but couldn’t deliver.  The difference is that now Russia appears for the first time able to put its tanks where its mouth is.

Russia’s recognition of Ossetia and Abkhazia baffled me. On this blog, I have frequently tried to show alternative, Russian perspectives on matters that seem otherwise to be common sense, above debate, to Western audiences. But I just cannot see any benefits this move will bring. On the contrary, by uniting the traditionally friendly OSCE, pragmatic EU and hostile NATO in opposition, it threatens to increase Russia’s international isolation, and heighten the very encirclement that Putin had so anxiously tried to roll back with his Caucasian gambit.

In an interview with Russia Today, Medvedev raised the stakes further still:

“We are not afraid of anything, including the possibility of a new cold war. But of course, we don’t desire it”.

Not one other country has recognised the breakaway republics.

Indeed, while “it would be an exaggeration to say that Russia finds itself in international isolation, writes the Russian political scientist Fyodor Lukyanov, “Russia has clearly found itself in a vacuum. No one has supported Moscow’s actions, although for various reasons”.

In his illuminating and clear-headed essay for Radio Liberty, Lukyanov goes on to state that:

“Russia has demonstrated that it is able and willing to use force outside its borders in order to defend its national interests. This leaves neighboring countries faced with the question of how to ensure their own security…And Russia has to answer an equally important question: What are the criteria for determining those genuinely essential national interests in the name of which it is justified to use military force?

Very important questions, which should have been answered BEFORE any shots were fired. Yet perhaps Lukyanov’s most important observation is that Russia and the US appear to have “incompatible strategic horizons”.

Russia is a global power with regional ambitions. That is, it is ready to exchange its opportunities in distant regions like Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and the Far East in exchange for its interests in the regions that border it — Europe and Eurasia. That is, Moscow has a clear hierarchy of its priorities.

The United States is a superpower with global ambitions. A global leader does not have secondary interests. It isn’t possible to sacrifice anything or make trades because if something starts to totter in one place, it could trigger a domino effect. Therefore, everyone else must be pushed back as much as possible. As a result, no constructive dialogue is possible.

Whether or not one endorses the rather bleak conclusion, it is undeniable that a new relationship must be negotiated between Russia and the US-led West.

All my friends have been asking me: why does Russia just not seem to care what other countries think of it? Surely there could have been more conciliatory, diplomatic things that Medvedev could have said etc? The truth is, I’m not sure how useful that would have been. George HW Bush famously said that the USA does not apologise to anyone. It is very doubtful that ‘politeness’ achieves anything in relations with other countries, whose ties are based on shared interests, not good vibrations. But it could cost you domestically. Just think of how Obama’s foreign trip was interpreted by the right wing press as ‘pandering to France’ and ‘apologising for America’. Leaders have every incentive to sound tough, and the tougher, the better. Does anyone really believe that if Medvedev had been more balanced and understanding that Bush and NATO would have changed their Caucasus policy in his favour?

In fact, that is precisely what Gorbachev did in the late 1980s, and the near-universal perception in Russia is that the West royally took advantage of that to beat Russia while it was down. Gorbachev made a very big deal of sharing Western values, of transcending the old politics of division, of believing in universal human rights and individual free choice. And the West loved him back. But did all that Gorbymania stop America and West Germany from wresting concession after concession from the spluttering USSR? Nothing personal, just business!

So now it’s no more Mr Nice Guy, goes the thinking, because Russia’s learnt the hard way exactly where they finish.

The latest edition of Private Eye, the finest satirical/investigative journal in the English language, is all about Russia & Georgia, with an Olympic flavour:

Let’s have a look, shall we?

And the party-political angle:

Western retaliation against Russia for its actions in Georgia will do it more good than harm, according to the academic and actvist Boris Kagarlitsky.

As Russian troops finally begin to withdraw from Georgia, the US and Nato are pondering the best punishment for its earlier invasion.

The respected International Crisis group suggested that “the West should deliver a firm message to Russia that if it does not respect the ceasefire deal and cooperate in implementing the international peacekeeping mission, it will be met with a serious response, including suspension of its Moscow’s World Trade Organisation application”.

Even Barack Obama is now calling to review the Russian WTO application.

But Kagarlitsky astutely notes that:

what Washington thinks is punishment for Moscow may in fact turn out to be a blessing. For example, the United States believes that blocking Russia’s entry into the World Trade Organization is one way to retaliate. But for Russia’s domestic industries — particularly when there is a global economic downturn — entry into WTO would be a death sentence. Therefore, if this sentence will be postponed, the Kremlin can only thank the United States and Georgia.

As if that wasn’t enough, the other sanctions considered would reduce corruption, improve civil society, and even protect the environment!

Washington and London are threatening to investigate the bank accounts of senior Russian officials that are held abroad. It’s surprising that this wasn’t done earlier. Russians can only benefit if the United States leads a new fight against money laundering, particularly when it involves top officials from the Russian government. Moreover, NATO is threatening to suspend joint military exercises with Russia. That means Russia will save a nice amount of money and fuel. Finally, in light of the increased tension, liberal opposition groups in Moscow will receive more active help from the West. This is also beneficial because new financing will mean the creation of new media outlets, new nongovernmental organizations and new jobs.

You don’t have to be Max Moseley to enjoy this kind of ’slap-down’!

Every happy president is happy in his own way; all unhappy presidents resemble one another, by going to war to boost their approval ratings.

(Medvedev approval rating courtesy of Levada Center poll, quoted in “Reiting Voennogo Vremeni”, Gazeta.ru, 20 Aug 2008).