Connect with us

Russia

Norway’s Okkupert: Russia, The Neo-Cold War, Crimea, the Baltics, and Finlandization

Emanuel L. Paparella, Ph.D.

Published

on

[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.

Professor Paparella has earned a Ph.D. in Italian Humanism, with a dissertation on the philosopher of history Giambattista Vico, from Yale University. He is a scholar interested in current relevant philosophical, political and cultural issues; the author of numerous essays and books on the EU cultural identity among which A New Europe in search of its Soul, and Europa: An Idea and a Journey. Presently he teaches philosophy and humanities at Barry University, Miami, Florida. He is a prolific writer and has written hundreds of essays for both traditional academic and on-line magazines among which Metanexus and Ovi. One of his current works in progress is a book dealing with the issue of cultural identity within the phenomenon of “the neo-immigrant” exhibited by an international global economy strong on positivism and utilitarianism and weak on humanism and ideals.

Continue Reading
Comments

Russia

Russia’s geopolitics and strategy in the future

Giancarlo Elia Valori

Published

on

Russia’s military doctrine is clearly closely related to European security – which is obvious even after the Cold War– and is in any case completely independent of the internal political configuration of the Russian regime.

 Therefore, studying the evolution of Russia’s military doctrine means predicting, a contrario, much of the strategic future of Europe and obviously of NATO as well.

 A strategic future that is still tied to the USA’s – and not only within the Atlantic Alliance – but which experiences situations that would have been unimaginable during the Cold War: the destabilization of the Mediterranean; the jihad; the Iranian-Saudi tension; the new role played by Israel; the more or less artificial “Arab springs”, the new immigration from sub-Saharan Africa and, finally, China’s New Silk Road.

All possible sub-military threats – obviously except for Israel’s role – which, however, multiply the hotbeds of tension, while NATO is focusing again on the East-West confrontation, thus providing to the East a wide range of possible instruments which are automatically taken away from the West.

 The last complete Russian military doctrine, however, was made public on December 25, 2015.

Before Russia’s participation in the war in Syria and hence even before the new projection of Russian power onto the Mediterranean, partly resulting from Russia’s relative success in Syria. In essence, Russia’s last doctrine was conceived in a very different phase of the East-West confrontation.

We should not even forget – as happened in the West in 2018 and afterwards – the Russian development of advanced medium-long range weapons, capable – at least according to the Russian technical experts – of hitting the Atlantic Alliance and the United States with the maximum speed and effectiveness without warning and without triggering nuclear-type equilibria.

In this case, we are talking about as many as seven strategic weapons programmes, most of which are already known.

Furthermore the United States have put the INF aside, as well as the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The new Strategic Reduction Treaty (START) is currently far from being defined and the rhetoric of the clash between the two former military empires seems to have reached its apex, now placed between rhetoric and reality.

 Two cycles of sanctions for Syria and Ukraine have already been decided by Trump’s Administration, both in relation to the poisoning of the former FSB agent Skripal, occurred in Great Britain in 2018, and to the use of the nerve agent  Novichok, also in other situations.

We are obviously not in a position to ascertain whether these accusations are grounded, but it is interesting to note how these two sanction phases have been originated by a probable or alleged attack by the Russian Intelligence Services (not Armed Forces) against some of their former agents.

 In any case, 2020 is always an end point for Russian military planners. Many things will be decided in the relations between East and West, based on the military doctrine developed this year.

 Previously, with the start of the Serdyukov-Makarov military reform, 1.35 million military had as many as 52,000 elements dealing only with command and control activities, albeit of the traditional and bureaucratic type.

However, the real power and quantity of truly combat-ready Russian forces did not exceed 100,000 units.

Hence, on average, only 13% of the forces were combat-ready. In the Army the average rate was 17%, while it was 7% in the Air Force and 70% in the Navy.

 In the Space and Strategic Missile Forces, however, 100% of units were combat-ready.

However, 55% of weapons were obsolete, at various levels. After that reform, however, Russia’s geopolitical and strategic ideas are still the same: NATO’s containment can be achieved only with the deterrence ensured by nuclear weapons; the doctrineis evolving towards the US-style network-centric warfare and finally the future of the Russian Forces will be based on their specialization in the counter-guerrilla warfare and the technological and operational organization of small units.

Moreover, the operations of the future are not designed to eliminate the enemy only physically, but also psychologically, culturally and in its stable relations with the civilian population. This is a typically “hybrid” factor.

According to Russia’s current planners, in the hierarchy of threats there arethe clashes in the Post-Soviet Space.

Furthermore, Russia is particularly interested in the stability of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russian planners also imagine a “Falklands scenario” for the Kuril Islands, put in place by Japan.

Not to mention even an explicit “containment” of China which, obviously, cannot be achieved by connecting it to a nuclear threat.

 The two external scenarios of primary interest for the Russian military planners are the Democratic Republic of Korea and the tension in Iran.

These are two possible points of entry into a narrow Russian strategic area, in which Russia’s response would be immediate, probably even nuclear and direct.

Still today, other potential threats are operations such as those which were carried out by NATO in the two Balkan wars, as well as the French-Italian-British presence in Libya, and some Western direct operations towards Belarus and the Russian borders, especially in the old area between NATO and the Russian terrestrial area.

 Despite this historical tension, which is now well-known, Russia does not believe there is any acceptable probability of clash between NATO and the Russian Federation, since Russia still thinks that nuclear deterrence is more than sufficient in this case.

 Therefore, the other strategic goals of the reform started in 2008 were the reduction of the available Forces to only 1 million military; the elimination of the low usable Forces; the reduction in the number of officers and a new command and control chain.

Certainly there were also the goals of reaching a 100% rate of combat ready forces, as well as increasing the outsourcing of materials and non-essential activities to civilian structures, and defining a new weapons program for 2020 designed to update 70% of material. Now we are already in 2020.

It should be clearly underlined that- to a large extent – these reforms implemented since 2008 have been successful.

 Therefore, also some non-negligible aspects of the Russian strategic doctrine are changing.

In particular, Russia thinks that the U.S. and NATO attitude has radicalized.

Above all with the “enhanced” use of sanctions, as well as with the spreading of the so-called “colour revolutions” in the post-Soviet area -which the Kremlin interprets just as if it were the “hybrid warfare” of the Westerners – and finally the increase of inter-State conflicts in the disputed areas between Central Asia and the borders of Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus.

 In fact, some military groups, especially in the United States, have explicitly stated they want to “intimidate” the Russian Federation again, and later contain it according to the tradition of the Cold War and of the old “Telegram” sent by “X”, alias George Kennan, in 1947.

 Russian distrust towards the West which, however, Russia has already widely shown both in the military doctrines of 2015 (the year of its engagement in Syria) and in the subsequent “Concept of Foreign Policy” of 2006.

Here the small changes in terminology and doctrine are always decisive.

As early as 2015, the above stated General Gerasimov’s doctrine underlined that “the use of non-military measures for the whole range of new conflicts is increasing”.

 That was, in fact, the mechanism used by Russia in Syria, at first, then in the Ukraine and, probably, also in Venezuela and in other countries of the world.

 Hence, an “integrated defence” strategy, which combines political and not directly military actions with conventional operations or even visible or invisible advanced psywar or commando actions.

General Gerasimov defined it “a strategy which proactively weakens and defuses the threats to State security”.

Hence we find here a strengthening of territorial defence, besides the coordination of the actions made by various State agencies, halfway between intelligence services and the organizations of the so-called “civil society”.

 In this sense, it was also referred to as the “strategy of restrained action”.

It is a term that was originally used to define precisely the Russian operations in Syria. It means to wage and fight a war always with limited goals, using only a part of the military potential and only certain groups of the Armed Forces, as well as selectively hitting only some enemy’s targets and groups which, however, are not necessarily military ones.

These are always joint operations, also with the use of nuclear weapons, which must be employed at such a level as not to trigger the enemy’s equalizing countermove.

Moreover, the Russian doctrine of 2014 mentioned, for the first time, also private military companies, generically defined as “a characteristic of modern conflicts”.

As General Gerasimov always maintain, private companies will be “a component of the increasing number of military players on the field”.

 Like the guerrilla groups, the “quasi-States”, the various countries’ Armed Forces. All operators on the battlefield at the same level as the “classic” ones.

In this context, Russia will increasingly use private military companies, which enable the Kremlin’s planners to avoid being directly responsible for the operations and particularly to have the possibility of attributing important tactical operations to the sole willingness of their private “collaborators”.

For Russia, the primary point between propaganda and strategy is the U.S. abandonment of the INF Treaty.

 With the next doctrine, Russia will reaffirm its interest in resuming a complete START-type Treaty with the United States. With specific reference to the nuclear issue, however, the criterion is the classic one: “the launch, immediately after an attack,” of a nuclear strike or of a conventional operation putting the Russian State in crisis.

Here the role played by the new weapons will be decisive anyway. Russia has the new Khinzal missile available, i.e. a ballistic air-to-ground or air-to-air, self-propelled, hypersonic and high-precision missile.

Russia has also the Avangard, previously known as Objekt 42020, available, i.e. a hypersonic glide vehicle that can be carried by continental ballistic missiles. The Burevestnik, previously known as Novator 9M730, a nuclear-powered surface-to-surface missile, is still operational, but there are some other weapons in advanced testing phase.

 There are also significant evolutions in military robotics, in supercomputers and in semi-automated decision-making systems. This is another face of the future war, i.e. the use of “high-precision weapons and robotic instruments” – just to quote again General Gerasimov.

 It is the technological face of hybrid warfare.

 On the other side, in a mix of old and new theories, the U.S. strategists argue that “whoever controls Russia, rules the world” – a new version of Mackinder’s old formula of power.

In the next Russian doctrine there will probably be no reference to NATO or the United States as “military threats on Russian borders”, but both Western strategic entities will be regarded as mere “dangers”.

The next Russian military doctrine will also deal with non-military instruments, which will probably be coordinated by an ad hoc structure combining traditional military commands and intelligence, as well as – most likely – an integrated command for psyops operations of a political nature.

In particular, the new hypersonic and high-technology weapons will be used for “sub-optimal” threats towards the enemies, without having to resort to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or small or large nuclear weapons, and to change not only the military and strategic space, but above all the political complexion of the enemy forces on the ground.

 We will have a theory of the strategic threat and political hegemony of the military spectrum, which will imply a set of instruments, organizations, and operations that is currently even hard to imagine.

Continue Reading

Russia

The Russian constitutional referendum of July 1, 2020

Giancarlo Elia Valori

Published

on

With specific reference to the health situation, Russia is still in a severe situation with over 350,000 Covid-19 cases.

 Brazil, however, has replaced the Russian Federation as the hardest hit country in the world, while the United States is now firmly at the top of the ranking. Nevertheless, what really frightens the Russian decision-makers are the medium and long-term economic consequences of the health crisis.

 Russia’s GDP had already recorded a 1.6% increase in the first quarter of 2020, but all Russian economists expect GDP to fall by at least 16% in the second quarter.

 Two-thirds of this GDP contraction, however, can still be attributed to the lockdown, but only one-third to the related fall in oil prices.

 With specific reference to the quarantine management, Prime Minister Mishustin thinks that 27 regions can now reduce quarantine restrictions, while the leaders of Rospotrebnadzor, the Russian Consumer Protection Agency, have asked the Governors of the Sverdlovsk and Smolensk regions to restore or even tighten quarantine requirements.

 The national average growth rate of viral infections in Russia is currently 3.9%, but a “Plan 2” for the definitive recovery of the Russian economy is already supposed to be in place.

 However, there will be three recovery phases: in the third quarter of 2020, the government will ensure that recession does not spread to the sectors which are still scarcely affected and will then refinance, one by one, the hardest hit economic sectors.

 The real Phase 2 – hence the real recovery – will take place from the fourth quarter of 2020 to the second quarter of 2021, with Russia trying to recover the pre-Covid 19 standards of living for the entire population. In the Phase 3, which will begin in the fourth quarter of 2021, the economy is even expected to start growing again.

 Pursuant to Russia’s current regulations, all proceeds from oil and gas exports are directly deposited into the National Welfare Fund (NWF).

 This Russian Sovereign Fund currently holds 11% of the whole Federation’s GDP. When the oil barrel prices are below 42 U.S. dollars, the Fund directly covers the difference by depositing what is needed directly into the federal budget. Above the threshold of 42 U.S. dollars, everything goes smoothly.

 Regardless of the constitutional referendum, the central government is likely to decide to take the necessary funds for the new economic expansion directly from the NWF.

 In a new crisis situation, the federal budget would directly receive all the oil revenues, which shall be allocated to the reconstruction of the Russian welfare and economy.

 Again with reference to oil, unlike other countries, Russia needs a basic oil barrel price of 40 U.S. dollars to “recover its costs”.

 Furthermore, the high prices reached after the various recent production restrictions within OPEC+ have enabled Russia to increase its reserves, which now stand at approximately 400 billion U.S. dollars.

 The Russian Federation’s current resources, however, would still enable the country to sustain even an oil barrel price of 25 U.S. dollars for ten years.

 Moreover, unlike Saudi Arabia and other OPEC+ countries, Russia depends on oil and gas exports only for approximately two thirds of its revenues, while the rest is made up of raw materials such as uranium, coal, other metals and minerals, and especially the sale of arms abroad, a sector for which the Russian Federation is second only to the United States.

 It is precisely in this geo-economic situation that the forthcoming referendum scheduled for July 1 in Russia will take place.

 As you may remember, the announcement of the constitutional referendum made on January 16, 2020, enabled the then Prime Minister, Dmitri Medvedev, to resign on that day and then take on the role of Vice-President of the Russian Security Council, which is obviously chaired by Vladimir Putin.

 Medvedev was replaced by Michail Mishustin, who is not a “man of force”, i.e. a former director of the Intelligence Services turned politician, but comes from the Federal Tax Service. When Mishustin himself fell ill with Covid-19, from April 30 to May 19 he was replaced by the economist Andrey Belousov.

 Hence what does President Putin want to achieve with his constitutional reform? Not just his mere stay in power, which the leader deems necessary, since he has not yet found his true heir apparent.

 It is a particularly effective sign that the second reading of the constitutional reform, adopted by the State Duma at the beginning of March 2020, was dominated by the presence of Valentina Tereskova, the first cosmonaut, now an 83-year-old member of Parliament.

 In that vote there were 382 in favour, 44 abstained and 0 MPs against.

 Therefore, if approved in the referendum, the current reform will be the real constitutional definition of Putin’s “vertical of power”.

 It should be recalled it is a mechanism made up of centre-periphery relations, but also of now stable electoral systems: the prohibition of presenting “independent” candidates; the registration of regular candidates by parties that are officially recognized and have at least 50,000 members in different regions of the country; the 7% hurdle, whereby the votes of those who do not reach said threshold shall always be distributed among all the other parties that have exceeded it.

 Certainly the Russian Federation cannot be a democracy. If it were so, it would no longer exist as such.

 A great empire, with a surface sixty times the size of Italy, but with a population just below the sum of Italians and Germans, as well as with empty Siberia on the border with the very overpopulated China.

 In an “empty country” – as Baron De Custine defined it at the beginning of the 19th century – the fear of foreigners always recurs: Putin’s old video, in the 2012 election rounds, showed the Chinese arriving in Khabarovsk; NATO taking Kaliningrad; the Islamists raiding in the Caucasus and finally the skinheads – an evident symbol of Western stupidity – moving freely around St. Petersburg.

 The Russian Constitutional Court, however, has already made it clear that Putin’s reform is legal.

 Hence what does Putin want? Firstly, a stronger system of central State controls over the federal and peripheral governments, so as to create the constitutional legislation of the “vertical of power” which is currently based only on Putin’s personal energy.

 Secondly the considerable strengthening of the status and role of the Russian Federation’s State Council, which is at present only an advisory body, not prescribed in the Constitution. It shall also be given the powers of orienting domestic and foreign policies, as well as identifying the main areas of future development in the country.

 Thirdly, Vladimir Putin’s proposal would mean that the regional Governors could automatically be members of the State Council, obviously after having established a pact with the Kremlin.

 Fourthly, the statute of the State Council shall be fully incorporated into the Constitution. The vast “nationalisation of elites” will be strengthened, since those who hold important positions for ensuring the country’ security, such as President, Ministers, members of the State Duma, regional Governors, judges or any other high-ranking State official, shall not have foreign citizenship or even a residence permit in other countries, either at the time of their work in office or, in the case of the President, at any time before.

 A presidential candidate, however, must prove he or she has been permanently living in Russia for at least 25 years (currently 10 years) and cannot serve more than two consecutive terms. Ex post, of course.

 The Constitution shall take precedence over international law and over the provisions of international treaties. Here the Russian concept of “sovereign democracy” is reaffirmed, which sometimes departs from the Western mythology of “human” and hence “universal” rights and states its clear opposition to dealing with the internal affairs of any other country.

 In the proposed constitutional reform, there is also the clear prohibition to transfer and alienate part of the Russian Federation’s territories.

 The Federation Council (the Upper House of Parliament), which now becomes the primary government body, shall also have the right to propose to the President to dismiss federal judges by providing a reasoned assessment and motivated opinion on their activity; in some cases, upon the proposal of the President, the Federation Council shall have the right to remove judges of the Constitutional and Supreme Courts.

 The State Duma (the Lower House of Parliament) shall have the right to approve the Prime Minister’s candidacy (currently it only gives consent to his/her appointment). The State Duma shall also approve the candidates of Deputy-Prime Minister and Federal Ministries; the President cannot refuse their appointment, but in some cases he/she will be able to remove them from office 

Hence the two directives of “United Russia”, Putin’s traditional party, become constitutional rule, i.ederžavnost’ – the ‘great power’ – and gosudarstvenničestvo, the ‘strong State’.

 Moreover, as always happens in current political propaganda, there is the issue of family relations.

 The new Constitution proposed by the President defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman – and even the TV propaganda of the referendum underlines this aspect.[

 Furthermore, the State has the explicit duty to “preserve and honour the memory of the Defenders of the Fatherland, as well as honour the pan-Russian cultural identity and show faith in God” as a value sacredly received by ancestors.

Sobianin, the mayor of Moscow, the city which is still the epicentre of the COVID-19 infection, wanted to hold the referendum in September, but Putin wants it now.

 Why? Because Vladimir Putin is aware of the political and personal tensions within the apparata.

 In the Secret Services and in the Armed Forces – which, over the last few months, have been the origin of indirect and veiled attacks on him. A series of events has also revealed how the Military Secret Service (GRU) is no longer entirely in Putin’s hands, as was previously the case.

 Certainly, now that the Covid-19 is in a phase of controlled expansion, Putin has anyway regained popularity.

 Still today, 63% of the Russian population shows strong support for Vladimir Vladimirovic Putin. In the referendum case, however, the voter turnout is estimated at 65%, which is always too little to ensure a real and definitive success to the President. Nevertheless, by paraphrasing Blaise Pascal, it should be recalled that democratic elections have ways “of which reason and the heart know nothing”.

 About 47% of Russians, however, states to be in favour of the reforms proposed by Putin to the Constitution.

 Too few? We shall see what the future has in store. Only 53% of young people is expected to vote, while 77% of elderly people is expected to go to the polls.

 Nevertheless, 41% of young people will always vote against Putin’s amendments to the Russian Constitution, with 45% of them living in Moscow.

 It is currently foreseen that 35% of voters will not go to the polls.

 Is Putin in danger? We do not believe so, considering that – if this happens because of his poor electoral performance – the President will find a way to recover. However, we do not think this will be the case. 

 Hence centralization of true power in Putin’s hands, up to two terms and even beyond but, on the other hand, distribution regulated by the central power to the regional governments.

 A new configuration of power in Russia, until Putin finds his true heir apparent.

 If he ever finds him, of course.

 The State is “a work of art”, as an old and valuable book by Jakob Burkhardt, “The civilization of the Renaissance in Italy”, reads.

 Therefore, every State does not reproduce as a photocopy, but only through the Author, the Artist.

 If voted and adopted, the amendments to the Russian Constitution will enable Putin to be regularly re-elected for over two consecutive terms, but, with the current changes, we can think of additional 12 years and more in power, but only for Vladimir Vladimirovic Putin.

Continue Reading

Russia

As US-China Competition Unfolds, Russia Watches Closely

Emil Avdaliani

Published

on

Russia’s relations with the West are at their lowest point in two decades. Similar patterns of warming and cooling have taken place intermittently ever since Russia emerged as a major Eurasian power in the early 18th century. Each crisis with the West alternated with rapprochement and at times full military and security cooperation.

An unchangeable trait of those relations was that Russia had scarcely any foreign policy alternatives with which to balance its West-oriented geopolitical worldview. For Moscow, the West remained a major source of technological, economic, and political progress even as it remained an existential threat, as various military invasions by western Europeans into the Russian heartland proved.

This changed in the early 2000s, when China’s rise gave Russia a new card to play. Today’s Russian political elites advocate a more balanced foreign policy in which the Kremlin’s interests lie in every major Eurasian region. According to that vision, Russia’s foreign policy is no longer attached to any specific region but is evenly spread in an era of “Global Russia.”

From the Russian perspective, the competition between the US and China is a geopolitical development that could offer Moscow many opportunities. The US, which once focused on containing Russia through broader support for vulnerable territories from Scandinavia to the Black Sea, is now focused on Syria and other Middle East trouble spots and is shifting its attention far from Russia’s borders to the Indo-Pacific.

There is, indeed, an urgent need for this shift in American focus, as China’s power far outstrips Russia’s. But for the Russians, the shift in the American worldview means US power will be depleted even more than it was in the 2000s. Over the century’s first two decades, the US entered Afghanistan and Iraq and later got involved in Syria, spending trillions overall.

This means that Russia’s pivot to the east, rebalancing the West with China, has much deeper geopolitical significance than many believe. Russia-China cooperation goes far beyond the “partnership of convenience” propounded by many analysts.

As the US-China competition persists (as it is likely to do for decades), it will grow easier for Russia to maneuver and attain at least some geopolitical aims in its immediate neighborhood. For Moscow, the longer the competition between the two economic and military powers goes on the better, as it will help Russia position itself as a separate pole of geopolitical gravitation.

We often forget that to the Russians, China and the US are long-term geopolitical rivals of very much the same caliber. The Kremlin does not trust either one of them, and their competition redounds to Russia’s benefit. A similar situation existed before WWII, when Stalin and the Bolsheviks perceived all Western powers as hostile. To gain geopolitical advantage it was necessary to foster disagreements between the Nazis and France and Great Britain.

While that strategy worked then, this is a different era. First and foremost is the grand scale of the struggle between the Chinese and Americans. Still, the inherent geopolitical worldview of the Russians remains the same: abstain from directly engaging in the US-China competition and try to leverage it to gain geopolitical points. The ultimate object is to have both the US and China approach Russia for geopolitical support.

Time will tell if this strategy will work. The US is increasing pressure on allies and partners across the world to desist from security and military cooperation with the Chinese. A clearly defined US-led techno-economic bloc is emerging. For the moment, Russia is closer to China through burgeoning economic and military ties—but the Russians fear that a powerful China could strategically challenge Moscow’s interests in Central Asia and elsewhere.

Ideally, Washington would prefer that Moscow come closer to the US than turn toward China. Perhaps serious effort will be made to salvage its broken relations with the Kremlin. The problem will be how many concessions the US and the EU can make. The focal points will be Ukraine first of all, and then Moldova and Georgia. Some concessions might be offered, but it is unlikely that the collective West will abandon its decades-long economic and military efforts in the former Soviet space.

Similarly, Russia will try to score points in the Middle East. The West might be more conciliatory there, but not to the point of abandoning the region altogether.

This leads to another scenario in which the West does not try to pull Russia closer, but rather leaves it to be drawn into China’s orbit. Many believe the collective West would be unable to match Russia’s and China’s combined resources. This might not be entirely true. After all, the US managed to contain the Soviets and the Chinese when they were close in the 1950s and early 1960s, a time when their satellites controlled most of the Eurasian landmass. This US tradition could serve as the basis for a more pronounced confrontation with the non-democratic powers.

This would mean that Russian hopes for geopolitical gains through grand geopolitical trade-offs with the West might not materialize. The country might be further pulled into the Chinese sphere of technological, military, and security influence.

The possession of a large nuclear arsenal would not be a point of leverage for Moscow. Chinese influence would expand in every non-nuclear sphere. With Russia essentially cut off from the West, it would be unable to contain China’s economic and military power in Central Asia and the Middle East.

Either of these scenarios could unfold. Russia might try to play the difficult game of balancing the West and China to gain concessions from both. However, the Kremlin’s long-term hopes could be dashed if the US comes to regard Russia and China as strategically linked in the enemy camp. With China dominant and Europe hesitant to help, there would be very little room for cooperation.

Author’s note: first published in BESA

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Terrorism12 seconds ago

‘Strengthen multilateralism’ to combat global terrorism

Although the pandemic has posed one of the greatest challenges since the UN’s founding 75 years ago, Vladimir Voronkov, head...

Economy1 hour ago

Dynamics of Current Global Economic Crisis

Global economic architecture is fundamentally weak and fragile and having multiple internal contradictions which emanate in different economic and financial...

Human Rights2 hours ago

World Population Day: ‘No time to waste’ in empowering women

“It is deepening existing inequalities and vulnerabilities, particularly for women and girls”, said Secretary-General António Guterres.  “With many countries on...

Environment4 hours ago

Rising global temperature shows ‘enormous challenge’ of meeting climate goal

Annual global temperature is likely to be at least 1°C warmer than pre-industrial levels in each of the coming five...

Reports6 hours ago

U.S: Extending support and lowering regulatory barriers could energize the recovery from Covid-19

Swift action by the U.S. government has helped shield households and businesses from the immediate economic shock of the Covid-19...

Southeast Asia7 hours ago

Can Cam Ranh Bay-Port Blair-Djibouti form a strategic Maritime chain hub to tackle China?

The world at present is grappling with the Global Pandemic Coronavirus, but Chinese maritime security aggressiveness in the East China...

EU Politics8 hours ago

New EU rules and guidance for a fairer online economy

The Commission publishes today a set of resources to help traders, online platforms and search engines get the most out...

Trending