[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] T [/yt_dropcap]here has appeared lately a veritable plethora of books examining the present US-Russia relationship in the light of the recent investigations into the Russia-Trump connections, the so called New Cold War.
It is quite obvious that President Trump, for some reason or other, does not wish to dwell on his personal interests and dealings with Russia and has been using every imaginable distraction to deflect attention from it. Some are now speculating that the sending of tomahawk missiles into Syria is one such distraction. That in itself is an interesting conjecture.
Neither do Russia or its oligarchs, who have enriched themselves tremendously after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union, are that eager to entertain the subject, nor are those who may be presumably be agents and spies for the Kremlin and minimize Russian assertiveness and aggression.
It is also quite obvious that those who defend Trump and his policies (or perhaps “non-policies might be a better term) do not wish to discuss the Russian aggression against Crimea, the Ukraine, its alliance with a war criminal who gasses his own people including women and children, the New Cold War which may portent a new Cold War in the making, despite the mutual admiration society that Trump and Putin have created in the last two years or so. One wonders why. Let’s see.
I’d like to analyze the above mentioned issues in the light of a 10 episode TV series which has come out recently out of Norway with the title “Occupert” (Occupied). It can be taken as an alternate tale of the above described rosy scenario downplaying the idea of a new Cold War and a manifest Russian aggression, albeit it is a fictional account.
Some may call it “fake news” or disinformation, something the Russians are quite expert at. Why bring in fiction when we have documented facts to rely on? Well, because sometimes myths and fictions can be more powerfully real than factual historical accounts, especially when they ruffle too many feathers and probe into the essential truth or falsehood of a subject at hand. One thinks of Orwell’s “1984,” not to speak of Plato’s ancient myth of the cave.
While the experts challenge scholars to imagine a third alternative to pro-Russia (overt or covert) vs. pro-Us, one devoid of partisanship, nationalism and patriotism, almost devoid of ideologies, this film has in fact ruffled many Russian diplomats’ feathers including Vladimir Putin and have exacerbated tensions existing between Russia and the EU over the annexation of Crimea and the conflict in the Ukraine and the very meaning of democracy and human rights.
Russia’s ambassador in Oslo, Norway, Vyacheslav Pavlovsky, who being more sophis- ticated than Donald Trump, communicates via email, told the press via email that “It’s definitely very regrettable that in the… 70th anniversary of the victory of World War II, the authors of the series — as if they had forgotten about the heroic contribution of the Soviet army in the liberation of northern Norway from Nazi occupants — decided in the worst Cold War traditions to frighten the Norwegian audience with a non-existing threat from the east.”
One interesting response to that protest by the Russian ambassador was that of the director of the movie Erik Skjoldbjaerg who said this “They’re commenting on a series they haven’t even seen yet, they are opposed in principle”. In other words, the ambassador, even before viewing the film, is saying that it is a piece of propaganda or a lie. The actual deviousness may actually consist in reviewing a movie one has not seen yet via ideological lenses. But let’s continue.
Let’s remember that the story is fictitious and its author is Jo Nesbo, a hugely popular crime writer in Norway. It depicts basically a Norway which in the near future (near because some of the events described in the movie are unfolding as we speak) plunges the world into a tragic international crisis by suddenly halting its oil and gas production following an environmental catastrophe. But again, why all the fuss over a piece of entertaining crime fiction? Are Norwegians and others too dumb to take it as such, as unadulterated entertainment? Obviously this fictional account has hit some raw historical or ideological nerves. Which ones?
Let’s begin with a quick look at the complex plot of the narrative. Russia takes over production of the black gold or oil being drilled in the North Sea which Norway wants to halt. In this it has the blessing of the European Union which has pulled out of NATO and the Atlantic alliance. Russia does what is now called a “silk occupation” of the country. It begins not with a military invasion but with an economic control of the oil, in effect an economic occupation with the Russian ambassador in charge in Oslo and the Norwegian Prime Minister, Jesper Berg, forced to play second fiddle in other to retain a modicum of dignity and sovereignty.
This sounds eerily similar to the Finlandization of Finland after World War II during the Cold War. Something like that is being attempted by Putin in the Ukraine and even in Crimea before its outright annexation. That may explain the angry protest of the Russians. The film may be fictitious, the ideas expressed in it may have preceded the Ukraine crisis, but it appears all too real when it assignes to the Russians the role of aggressors. That may be one of the raw sensitive nerves that has been hit. It is the nerve of the accusation by the EU of military interference in the Ukrainian conflict which some see as the beginning of a new Cold War, or at the very least as the beginning of the frostiest relations between Russia and the West since the collapse of the USSR.
On the other hand the Norwegians insist that the story is about what happens in an occupied country where life appears quite normal but some are ready to sacrifice themselves in a fight for freedom. The Russians are not buying it and have in fact increased their activities off its Arctic coast, close to Norway. This concerns the Norwegians who do not belong to the EU, they never joined, but are in sinc with it when it comes to sanctions against Russia because of the Ukraine crisis in which Russia is heavily involved despite its denials.
But there may be another raw nerve and it is historical. Okkupert, while never even mentioning the word “quisling,” does evoke the Nazi occupation of Norway when Vidkun Quisling collaborated with the invaders and so in some way evokes the trauma of that era. Quisling’s for all intent and purposes was a puppet government which revoked the authority of the Norwegian King (who was exiled to England after he refused to abdicate), banned the entry of fleeing Jews, and committed Norwegian soldiers to the Eastern front under Nazi supervision. After the war the very name of “quisling” became an eponym for “traitor.”
So, the Russians see Okkupert as a modern version of Quisling’s shameful legacy, revisited on Russia for the near future. The question arises: is the revisiting, if indeed it is that, well deserved because of certain notoriously aggressive moves by present day Russia?
There is also the issue of environmental ethics. The Norwegian Prime Minister Jesper Berg is from the Green party which has succeeded in assuming power after a damaging global warming hurricane. He wants to introduce a new form of nuclear energy-powered chemical element called thorium, with Norway leading by example and shutting down gas and oil production. This action is found unacceptable by the EU and Russia which threaten Norway with a full scale invasion unless it commits to maintaining fuel extraction under Moscow’s supervision (the crew doing the extraction will all be Russian) while the US, somewhat similar to what may eventually happen soon, having withdrawn from NATO and achieved energy independence, sits this one out.
How relevant is all this to what has occurred in the Ukraine? Isn’t Russia occupation of parts of the Ukraine a so called friendly “velvet occupation”? In the film, when the Russians first come to Norway, they come as civilians, with no thanks or fighter jets. There are not even “little green men. Only those who care to notice see the subtle diminution of Norwegian sovereignty and the increasing assertion of Russian control. Thus Berg goes along with the temporary occupation hoping that nobody will take notice.
The book came out in 2012 but it became relevant and more relevant in the light of the forced annexation of Crimea, the subsequent Ukraine crisis in 2014 and the appearance of East-West tensions over Putin’s new-found assertiveness in Europe, an attempt to divide Europe from the US and finance its ultra-nationalist, fascist leaning parties inimical to the union of the EU, the violation of Baltic and Scandinavian airspace and seas which have become routine. Trump, up to now has played right into this scenario refusing to criticize Russia in any way, for dubious reasons. War games are being played in the Kremlin in which Russian troops seize the Estonian capital of Tellinn in 60 hours. It all lends authenticity and relevancy to the present situation in Europe and the US too.
Indeed, there is little about this show that feels unrealistic and implausible. The human drama that it reveals feels very real. One of its deepest insights is to show how a democratic society, because of its compromises with democratic principles aimed at “getting along and surviving,” slowly but inexorably gets transformed, willy nilly, into a morally corroded polity. This society wished to continue its normalcy and end up thinking of the “Free Norway” secret underground para-military movement as a terrorist movement, but in reality it is the only movement which retains its patriotic fervor in the face of humiliating compromises.
The show also portrays an admirable journalist, Thomas Eriksen, who repeatedly risks his life to expose the truth. Also Martin Jjupvik, a security detail agent who believes he is helping his country by working with the Russians in rooting out his fellow Norwegians. That of course raises the specter of Quisling. It also raises the specter of Finnish neutrality during the Cold War which allowed that country to remain independent but subservient to the Russians and thus avoid the fate of the Baltics which were forcefully incorporated to the Soviet Union. Finland made “Finlandization” a dirty word describing what happens to a small country when it lives next to a big and territorially expansionistic one. It ends up trading a reduction of its sovereignty in exchange for self-rule. That is another raw nerve in the Norwegian psyche. They wish to avoid a repetition on “Finlandization” in Norway, the equivalent of a “lion in a cage” according to the Estonian-Finnish novelist Sofi Oksanen. And so do most of the democratic EU nations, I dare say. They do not wish to become satellite with the illusion of independence and sovereignty.
It was therefore quite predictable that the Russian government of Vladimir Putin would not be very pleased with Occupert. It intimates that Russia can be friendly with neighboring democratic governments but only when they are on a leash. In other words, it reveals too much of the game of “divide and conquer” which Putin is playing as we speak. He wants to keep in place the Russian propaganda with its sense of victimhood at the hands of the Bullying West, remind the world of Russia’s role in the Great Patriotic War, and continue its vehement denial that Russia poses any kind of threat to any of its neighbors.
The EU for one is not buying. It remains to be seen if Trump, who is capable of pivoting on a dime, since he has little if any ethical and democratic principles, also comes around. A Gallup poll among Norwegians a couple of years ago reveals that 89% of Norwegians disapprove of Russia’s leadership. As Lincoln said: “One can fool some of the people all the times, and all of the people some of the times, but one cannot fool all the people all of the times.” Putin and company will eventually discover that.
The Case of Belarus: Russia’s Fear of Popular Revolutions
For Russia, the crisis in Belarus caused by the August presidential election result is of a geopolitical nature. Moscow might not be openly stating its geopolitical calculus, but in its eyes, the Belarus problem resembles the uprisings in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan and represents a similar problem in the long run.
Whatever the arguments propounded by world analysts that protests in Belarus are not about geopolitics and more about popular grievances against President Alexander Lukashenko, the issue will ultimately transform into serious geopolitical game.
For Moscow, the Belarus problem has been about geopolitics from the very beginning, though it was only on August 27 of this year that Vladimir Putin announced the creation of a special “law enforcement reserve” for use in Belarus should the situation get “out of control.”
The Russians understand that an “Armenia-style” revolution in Belarus could theoretically take place, but it would open the country more to Europe and thereby create geopolitical dilemmas similar to those created in Ukraine before 2014. The Russians further grasp that in Ukraine, the situation was out of control even before the Maidan Revolution. Moscow’s influence was not sufficient to stop Ukraine’s gradual shift toward closer ties with the collective West.
For the Russian leadership, events in Belarus are a continuation of the “revolutionary” fervor that has been spreading across the former Soviet space since the early 2000s. What is troubling is whether or not the Russians see this process as an expression of the popular will that is largely independent of the West. Several indicators point to an ingrained belief within the Russian political elite that in fact the West has orchestrated the popular upheaval in Belarus.
Russian history might be of help here. Throughout the nineteenth century, the Russian Empire fought the spread of European revolutionary thought along and inside its borders. It built alliances to confront it and fought wars to forestall its progress. But in the end, the Bolshevik Revolution and the subsequent policies of the Communist Party were largely based on European thought, though many western ideas were changed or entirely refashioned.
Similar developments took place during the late Soviet period. By the 1980s, popular disapproval of the Soviet system had grown exponentially. A revolutionary fervor for independence ran amok in the Baltic states, Ukraine, and elsewhere. True reforms would have served as a cure, but half-hearted economic and social measures only deepened the crisis. Military power was used in a number of capitals of Soviet republics, but again only half-heartedly. Thus was the entire Soviet edifice brought down.
Modern Russian leadership should see that there is essentially no cure for popular grievances and mass movements along its borders. Russian history gives multiple examples of how military intervention against revolutionary fervor can bring immediate results but leave long-term prospects bleak. The defeat of revolutionary passions can only take place by minimizing those economic, social, and state-system problems that usually generate popular upheaval. This is the dilemma now facing modern Russia. The revolutions that occurred over the past 20 years, and the situation today in Belarus, all fit into this pattern.
For the moment, Lukashenko has won this round of strife with the protesters, and his rule is highly likely to continue. But what is equally certain is that the protests gave birth to a massive popular movement in a country that was once famous for the quiescence of its population.
Russia fears that eventually, this revolutionary tide will close in on Russian society. Lukashenko has stressed this idea, saying in an interview that mass disturbances will one day reach Moscow. Many rightly believed this was a ploy by Lukashenko to scare the Russians into supporting him—after all, Belarus is far smaller than Russia and much less important than Ukraine. Still, Lukashenko was right insofar as he pinpointed possible long-term problems Russia could face as it moves closer to 2036.
Much depends on the West as well. It faces a dilemma in which it ought to pursue a policy of vocal condemnation and perhaps even impose heavy sanctions—but from a balance of power perspective, moves like those would distance Minsk and push it closer to the Russian orbit. This dilemma of morality versus geopolitical calculus will haunt the West in the years to come.
Belarus exports 10.5 million tons of oil products per year, including about six million tons through the ports of the Baltic states to world markets and another 3–3.5 million tons to Ukraine. Redirecting flows from the Baltic ports to Russian ones has been discussed, but this option is less attractive to Minsk because of the longer distances involved. This comes at a time when the Baltic states imposed sanctions on high-ranking Belarussian officials and the EU is pondering serious measures.
With each such move from the West, Russia gets another opportunity. Russia has professed interest in encouraging Belarus to redirect its oil exports to Russian ports and has agreed to refinance a $1 billion debt to Russia.
A broader picture might help put the events in Belarus in context. In the South Caucasus, the Russians appear to have reached the limit of their influence. They more or less firmly control the overall geopolitical picture, but have nevertheless failed to derail Western resolve to compete in this region. In Central Asia, Russia has more secure positions, but the region in general is less important to the Kremlin than the western borderlands.
It is thus the western front—Belarus and Ukraine—that is a major theater for Moscow. Since 2015, many have believed that Syria is Russia’s top geopolitical theater, but this assumption is based simply on the intensity of the immediate processes that are transpiring in the Middle East. With or without Syria, Moscow’s global standing will not be fundamentally damaged. Belarus is a different matter entirely. Changes there, and by extension a potentially anti-Russian state, would constitute a direct threat to Moscow.
For Russia, Belarus is the last safe buffer zone on its western border. Ukraine is lost, as is Moldova, and the Baltic states have long been under NATO protection. Only Belarus serves as a bridge for Russia to move militarily into the heart of Europe. To lose it would be tantamount to a complete “encirclement” of Russia by the West, as argued by Russian politicians.
This geopolitical reality also means that Belarus is the country that will remain most susceptible to Russian geopolitical influence. No wonder Russia is pushing to station its air base on Belarussian soil, reinvigorate the Union state, and intensify Minsk’s economic dependence on Moscow. As was the case with Ukraine, the upheaval in Belarus is about regional geopolitics.
Author’s note: first published in besacenter.org
The Navalny case: Violent maintenance of the Cold War
We are currently witnessing the rise of the Cold War, through the media, after the case “poisoning” of Alexei Navalny. The case was used to raise tensions between Moscow and the European Union to the maximum.
Apparently, Alexei Navalny became a victim of poisoning. Yet none of this we can know for sure. However, after the mentioned event, an avalanche of statements “about the orderers of poisoning” was initiated by prominent European and American representatives. Without any critical review, avalanches began to fall in the direction of Moscow and President Vladimir Putin as the main culprit.
One of the first countries from which the avalanche of accusations started was France. Francois Croquet, France’s ambassador for human rights, said: “We know who is to blame.” A very undiplomatic statement for a diplomat, which went beyond the official framework of communication. Francois Crockett joined the wave of accusations against Russia with his statements before any investigation.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said that in his opinion, “she (Russia) should have conducted an investigation, and when the culprits are found, they should be tried, to learn a lesson, because this is not the first case of poisoning.” ». The statement, very fierce, but outside the position held by the person in question. The statements of prominent diplomats call into question the international authority of France’s voice in the world.
These statements are aggressively joined by many politicians in Eastern Europe, especially those who feel revanchism towards Russia because of the Eastern Bloc, and further project of Russophobia, which are in line with the great energy battle over the construction of Nord Stream 2, which involved the case of Alexei Navalny.
What do we know so far about Navalny and his treatment. Navalny was initially treated in Russian hospitals, by doctors who did not detect any presence of poison, and then he was transferred to Germany, where it was determined that he was intentionally poisoned. His transport was organized by the “Cinema in the Name of Peace” organization, which was responsible for “rescuing” the group “PussyRiot”, which considered the act of imitation of abortion in the church to be an expression of artistic performance.
In the light of the situation with Russian opposition member Alexey Navalny admitted to the “Charite” hospital in Berlin with the symptoms of poisoning European and particularly German politicians and journalists opened yet another page of blatant Russophobia. Many of them push forward the theory of poisoning creating a classic image of the bloody Russian state trying to get rid of another enemy as in their vision it happened with Sergey Skripal. Even though no proofs are available and the statements of German doctors are scarce of details, this case is claimed to deepen the crisis in German-Russian relations. Some Bundestag members even call to cancel Nord Stream-2 as a punishment for the Russian government.
Despite the media hysteria encouraged by many politicians from the West, there are those who did not succumb to the first wave of Russophobia, and looked more soberly at the event related to Alexei Navalny and asked for additional evidence. For example the Vice President of the Flemish Parliament Filip Dewinter:
“Until now there is no real proof that Navalny was poisoned. I have the impression that countries like Germany are building up the pressure against Russia. The Navalny-issue is once again a perfect excuse to compromise the Russian authorities with violence and oppression against the ‘opposition’ … An objective and neutral investigation will tell“ stated Mr. Filip Dewinter.
His statements are not alone
Chairman of the “Prussian Society Berlin-Brandenburg” Volker Tschapke stated:
“Facing constant anti-Russian propaganda on different levels, I am not surprised with such an attitude, yet I can’t accept it. One of the key principles of any democratic society is the benefit of the doubt: nobody can be declared guilty until the proper investigation is conducted. Too bad, looks like this principle doesn’t work in Europe anymore. I’d like to wish Mr. Navalny to recover very soon and to call German politicians to stick to democratic values and stop pointing fingers at the Russian government without any substantial evidence base.“ said Mr. Tschapke.
Doubts about the case are also expressed by Member of the Parliament of Italy Paolo Grimoldi:
“I don’t trust the “institutional attack” to Navalny in Russia. He has many enemies, especially outside politics, in his life. In my opinion, it doesn’t look like an attempt to eliminate a political opponent. If any Russian top institutional level ever wanted to strike Navalny they would act more efficiently so let’s be serious and stop attacking Russia for nothing, stated Mr. Grimoldi.
Divided statements regarding Navalny’s case tell us that, unlike in 2014, American power is declining and that European politicians do not make synergistic statements against Russia, but many of them view things with common sense and seek additional evidence for accusations against Russia. More and more Europeans are asking the questions: How is Russia threatening us? What will happen terribly for Europe if Nord Stream 2 is built? Most understand that the conflict in which America is pushing Europe with Russia has nothing to do with European interests, but with American ones.
Alexei Navalny’s Case Matters to the Kremlin
The global call for an objective investigation that will inevitably establish facts into the alleged “poisoning” of opposition leader and a Russian citizen, Alexei Navalny, in August has started yielding results. President Vladimir Putin has decided, as the first step, to set up an independent committee to investigate the cruel and inhumane attempt on his life.
As globally known, Navalny is a Russian opposition politician and anti-corruption activist. He came to international prominence by organizing demonstrations and running for political office, advocating against corruption in Russia and contributing to public discussions on reforms that could help Putin’s government.
He fell ill on a domestic flight last month and was treated in a Siberian hospital, and later evacuated to Berlin. Germany has said that toxicology tests conducted by its armed forces found “unequivocal evidence” that Navalny had been poisoned with Novichok, the substance used in the 2018 attack Skripal family, on a former Russian double agent and his daughter in the English city of Salisbury.
Navalny’s case undoubtedly bears similarities to other poisoning incidents in the political history of Russia. There are many ordinary Russians, who believe that the world must know the truth about this brazen attempt on the life of a Russian opposition leader. In addition, it would clear the air, or instead to have an increasingly tainted image.
In an interview with the Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte made by Di Claudio Cerasa from an Italian media, Il Foglio, on September 10, 2020, focused on Alexei Navalny.
“Navalny? The German position coincides with the Italian one. Recovery? We will start with the Commission’s recommendations. Oppositions? My invitation to dialogue is always valid. School? There are reasons to be optimistic.” Interview with the Prime Minister, Giuseppe Conte, the headline reads and here translated into English.
The Head of the Government chooses to speak on an important issue that has nothing to do with economic dossiers or with the future of the government, but with a delicate issue of a diplomatic and geopolitical nature. The theme is this: but exactly, where does Italy stand on the Alexei Navalny case? Alexei Navalny, as you know, is one of the most prominent opponents of Russian President Vladimir Putin and was taken to Germany to be treated after being poisoned in Russia.
The German government said it had acquired “no doubt” evidence that Navalny was poisoned. Angela Merkel herself said she “condemned this attack in the most severe way” and has asked the Russian government “to urgently clarify because there are questions that only the Russian government can and must answer. The world is waiting for explanations.”
It was revealed that investigators found a new, more lethal variant of Novichok on Navalny’s hands and water bottle: for this reason, investigators believe that the perpetrators of the attack are Russian services authorized by the Kremlin. Up to now, we point out to Conte, the government has chosen to handle the issue with great caution – even too much. But in this conversation with Il Foglio, the prime minister puts aside a little diplomacy and agrees to answer a specific question, according to the published article.
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has told Italy’s prime minister that he would set up a committee to investigate the poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, Giuseppe Conte quoted on as saying on September 10.
“President Putin has assured me (in a recent conversation) that Russia intends to clear up what has happened, and told me that he would set up a committee of inquiry and was ready to collaborate with the German authorities,” Italy’s Conte told the newspaper Il Foglio in the interview. “Collaboration is the best way to prevent this dramatic event from negatively affecting relations between the EU and Russia,” Conte added.
The Italian prime minister also highlighted the importance of Russian-EU cooperation in investigating the incident with Navalny. According to him, this cooperation could prevent a negative fallout for relations between Russia and the European Union. Like all European partners, Italy believes that it is necessary to fully clarify the details of this incident and find those behind it.
This step taken by the Kremlin could scale down escalating tensions between European Union members, especially, Germany and Russia. It tension relating Navalny threatens to cause lasting damage to diplomatic relations and the economies of both countries, and as a whole the European Union.
Over the ongoing situation, among others, relating to Navalny, European Union has threatened more sanctions against Russia. What is really at stake here also is the Nord Stream-2. This pipeline is expected to provide Europe with a sustainable gas supply while providing Russia with more direct access to the European gas market.
The Nord Stream-2 is a pipeline project slated to transport natural gas from eastern Russia to northern Germany, where it would link up with infrastructure that carries fuel to Western Europe. It would run 1,200 kilometers, mostly under the Baltic Sea along the existing Nord Stream pipeline – hence the name Nord Stream 2.
Commenting on the health condition of Alexey Navalny, State Duma Chairman, Viacheslav Volodin, expressed his gratitude to “the pilots who had immediately reacted to the extraordinary situation when the passenger had felt worse and took a decision to land in Omsk.”
He also added: “It is very good that Angela Merkel decided to help and provided assistance to Alexey Navalny. I would like to believe that she would have done the same if any other citizen of the Russian Federation, and not just a radical dissident, had got in such situation. It is important to note the professional actions of doctors, not only at the regional, but also at the federal level, who immediately began resuscitation and held consultations. It is important that all patients should be treated equally.”
“We need to comprehensively study what exactly happened. The State Duma Committee on Security will be instructed to analyze the details of the situation to find out if it had been an attempt of foreign states to cause harm to health of a Russian citizen to escalate tensions in Russia, as well as to prepare new allegations against our country,” said the Chairman of the State Duma.
On September 9, in connection with the demarche undertaken by the Group of Seven on the Alexei Navalny case, the Foreign Ministry has issued the following statement. Russia insists that Germany provide data on Alexei Navalny’s medical examination, including the results of the biochemical tests, as per the official request for legal assistance submitted by the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation on August 27. Berlin has not been willing to respond to our repeated requests in a prompt and constructive manner.
“Without the above-mentioned information, the Russian law enforcement agencies are unable to engage all the necessary procedural mechanisms in order to establish the circumstances of the incident. Meanwhile, the frenzy that is being stirred up around this case is only growing,” according to the statement posted to its official website.
“We note that Russian doctors proposed establishing close dialogue with their German colleagues in order to discuss the available data on Alexei Navalny’s health that is held in Russia and in Germany. Unfortunately, the German side has been thwarting this process,” it further said.
The unconstructive approach by the German authorities is accompanied by groundless accusations against Russia. The massive misinformation campaign that has been unleashed clearly demonstrates that the primary objective pursued by its masterminds is to mobilize support for sanctions, rather than to care for Alexei Navalny’s health or establish the true reasons for his admission to hospital, it concluded.
Russia has different relations with individual member states of the European Union. But, all the members unite around policies either for or against Russia. Since 2014 annexation of Crimea, for example, the EU has collectively imposed sanctions initially involving visa bans and freeze of assets of 170 individuals and 44 entities involved in these operations. The EU sanctions have been extended and are in force until 2020.
Only sustainable palm oil can save the Orangutan from extinction
Last week an Italian scientist, Roberto Gatti, made headlines in Malaysia when he proclaimed that there is “no such thing...
Why Young African Scholars Must Engage the Law and Politics of Africa through New Perspectives
The Year of Africa was a powerful phase, a transitional moment that saw Africa in liberated black and white images....
The new relationship between Israel and Bahrain
The issue of the new relationship between Israel and Bahrain, following the agreement already signed between Israel and the United...
ILO calls on Belarus President to respect workers’ rights and freedoms amid protests
The Director-General of the International Labour Organization, Guy Ryder, has called on the President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, to prevent...
4 million jobs added to Nepal’s economy in the past decade -Report
Nepal’s economy added nearly four million jobs over the past decade, and average job quality increased significantly, according to the...
The U.S. Oil Ambitions Threaten Economy and Sovereignty of Syria
From the very beginning an open U.S. intervention in the Syrian conflict caused heated discussions in the world community concerning...
More can be done to ensure a green recovery from COVID-19 crisis
Many countries are making “green” recovery measures a central part of stimulus packages to drive sustainable, inclusive, resilient economic growth...
Defense3 days ago
Rafale deal: A change in aerial balance in South Asia?
South Asia3 days ago
The Dragon Elephant Tango: Indo-China relations under Modi
East Asia3 days ago
The Himalayan landscape: A hot bed of tensions between India and China
Urban Development3 days ago
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train (OLMT) project: A Critical Review
South Asia2 days ago
The China Pakistan Economic Corridor: Justifications and Refutations
Economy3 days ago
Objectives and Importance of Advertising in a Competitive Business World
New Social Compact2 days ago
Women Lead More Humanely During Times of Pandemic
Science & Technology2 days ago
The global market of advanced electromechanical technologies