Vladimir Putin on The Huffington Post

Putin's Rare Siberian Tiger Goes Missing

2009-11-25T09:52:25Z

VLADIVOSTOK, Russia — A rare Siberian tiger fitted by Vladimir Putin with a radio-tracking collar has vanished, a Russian environmentalist said Wednesday, dramatizing the plight of a species some conservationists fear may be approaching extinction.

Russia's prime minister drew worldwide publicity in 2008 when he shot the five-year-old female tiger with a tranquilizer gun and helped place a transmitter around her neck. That allowed visitors to his Web site to follow the animal's prowlings through Russia's wild Far East. A video of the episode is on YouTube.

Robert Amsterdam: The Murder of Russian Rule of Law

2009-11-19T10:26:57Z

According to reports, late on Monday night the 37-year-old Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky suffered a fatal rupture of the abdominal membrane causing heart failure and death. He was being held in pre-trial detention in Moscow for almost a year, where he was subjected harsh conditions and refused proper medical treatment; allegedly pressured to give false testimony in exchange for improved conditions.

His death was not an accident, nor simply an event of natural causes, but rather a state sanctioned murder, coming just one day after U.S. President Barack Obama declared the "reset" of relations with Russia was working. The murder fits into a pattern of government hostility toward lawyers, including the harassment of Boris Kuznetsov, the jailing of Mikhail Trepashkin, the medical blackmail of Vasily Alexanyan (who was alsopressured to fake testimony against Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a political prisoner I defend), and even the shooting of Stanislav Markelov.

How the assassin's bullets which took Markelov's life are parallel to the denial of medical care to Magnitsky may be a topic for debate, but both cases have involved systematic processes common to a legal environment which lacks rule of law. The powerful flaunt the law, manufacture false verdicts against opponents and competitors, and embed the profits of their graft into the odious politics which make it possible. As a result, impunity rules the day. When state thefts as large as Yukos and Hermitage are possible, we have a situation in which there are so many officials in on the take that there are practically no incentives to reform, no matter how many well intentioned speeches President Dmitry Medvedev may give.

Magnitsky had committed no crime other than blowing the whistle on a massive tax fraud scheme perpetrated by parties related to the Russian government. As a lawyer at the law firm Firestone Duncan, Magnistky served as counsel to the American investor William Browder and the Hermitage Capital Management group -- formerly the largest foreign investor in the country.

Though once recognized as the success story of foreign investment in Russia, Hermitage has become another victim of the nightmare of corruption, state theft, and legal nihilism familiar to observers of the country. It all began when police and officials from the Interior Ministry raided their offices, forged documents to steal away the ownership of subsidiary companies, followed by a $232 million tax rebate -- stolen not from the foreigners but from the Russian taxpayers themselves.

Magnitsky was later arrested as part of a brutal campaign of retaliation after Hermitage went public, filing various complaints and suits. Unlike many, he showed tremendous courage in giving key witness testimony to the authorities identifying individuals within the police who had perpetrated the Hermitage theft. However instead of acting on all the evidence of real crimes, the prosecutors turned around and accused the accusers of the very corruption they seek to cover up.

The most heartbreaking document I have read since his death is the 40-page filing which Magnitsky had sent to Chief Prosecutor Yuri Chaika to denounce the abysmal conditions and specifically plead for medicine and treatment to save his life. Reading like a cry from the grave, the document includes the following:

"Since approximately June 2009, while I was staying in Matrosskayua Tishina, my health has deteriorated. Medical examination carried out at the end of June - beginning of July 2009 revealed gallbladder stones and pancreatitis and calculous cholecystitis were diagnosed. (...)

On August 24, 2009 the pain became so acute that I was not even able to lie down. Then my cellmate started to knock on the door demanding for me to be taken to a doctor. This was approximately at 16:00. The warder promised to ask a doctor to come but he didn't appear despite the recurrent demands of my cellmate. I was only taken to a doctor 5 hours later.

In informed the doctor about my illness and complained that during my confinement in BP I had never been examined by a doctor. The doctor was very displeased; while browsing through my medical record she kept saying: "What medical examination, what medical treatment are you talking about? It is written here that you have already been given medical care. Do you think we are going to treat you every month?"

Magnitsky's complaint goes on to detail a litany of other injustices and cruelties, including denial of the right, guaranteed under Russian law, to meet with his wife and his mother. It is apparent that he suffered cruel and unusual punishment under many standards by the Russian government, and that he was singled out for this abusive treatment above and beyond the rest of the pre-detention center's population for his involvement in the Hermitage affair.

It has become something of a journalistic cliché to take these shocking Kafkaesque legal sagas in Russia and call them "a litmus test" for the country to demonstrate its rule of law and potential for judicial independence. But we do ourselves a disservice if we continue to be surprised but a movie we have seen over and over again. The process of medical blackmail against Magnitsky is identical to what they did to Alexanyan. The ominous warning signal of what happens to whistleblowers serves the same purpose as what Anna Politkovskaya's murder did for freedom of press.

Let the tragic death of Magnitsky not stand as another litmus test for rule of law, but rather a reverse test which measures our commitment to human rights. How many more dead Russians will it take before the world stands up and takes notice? Given the fluid willingness of so many presidents (Obama included) to seek accommodation and compromise to extract any improvement in relations with Russia, it is unlikely that this death will impact anyone's deal. Next week if the media reports on the next business stolen by the government, the next activist shot, or the next journalist thrown in jail, will we pretend to be surprised again?

Russia long ago failed its litmus test for rule of law, but the international community must not fail its own.

Putin Gets Down At Hip-Hop Party (VIDEO)

2009-11-13T17:15:14Z

Vladimir Putin may not be hip, but he isn't afraid to mix it up with some hip-hop.

The Russian prime minister, dressed in a somewhat unfortunate turtleneck sweater, decided to get down Friday on "Battle for Respect," a music contest run by Muz TV, Russia's answer to MTV. Putin was there not to dance -- though he did sway ever so slightly and awkwardly to the beat -- but to present awards, spread an anti-drug message, and buff his image as a man of the people.

From the AFP:

"And breakdance is something peculiar," Putin said. "This really is propaganda for a healthy lifestyle because it is hard to imagine breakdancing having anything to do with drinking and dope."

Putin is no stranger to the careful management of his everyman image, as anyone who saw the photos from his summer vacation of him riding shirtless on a horse can attest. As Reuters notes, Putin has been on an image rehabilitation program recently after seeing his approval ratings take a plunge last month.

Alexei Dymovsky, Russia's Whistleblower Cop, Becomes Youtube Sensation

2009-11-11T12:39:07Z

MOSCOW, Russia -- Alexei Dymovsky sits in full uniform and stares at the camera with tired eyes.

Oleg Kozlovsky: Human Rights Protesters Arrested in Moscow for Demanding Freedom of Assembly

2009-11-03T12:40:52Z

Another protest rally was dispersed Saturday night by Moscow police. The action was a part of the so called Strategy 31 -- a campaign in support of freedom of assembly guaranteed by paragraph 31 of the Russian Constitution. This basic right to hold peaceful demonstrations is routinely violated by the authorities: Major opposition rallies are banned, often without any legal grounds, their participants get arrested and beaten by the police. The situation is particularly bad in Moscow where all government institutions are located and authorities are especially rigid (although legislation is the same in all regions).

As a part of this Strategy 31, several human rights and political activists (as different as prominent Soviet dissident and human rights defender Lyudmila Alexeeva and radical left-wing opposition leader Eduard Limonov, for example) decided to hold a demonstration at Triumfalnaya Square in downtown Moscow on October 31. The action was, as usual, banned; the authorities explained that some kind of a "military-patriotic celebration" was planned for the same time at the same place. In order not to provoke arrests, organizers told participants not to bring any flags or banners or chant slogans. "How long will the police stay there?" they asked, and suggested that people should wait until the police leave the square.

The government had different plans, however. In order to find a pretext to arrest participants of the action, members of Rossiya Molodaya (Young Russia), a Kremlin-aligned youth group (a part of the so-called Putin Youth), were used as provocateurs. They began lighting flares, chanting slogans and throwing leaflets (mocking the opposition) in the middle of the crowd. The police were ready: They arrested the Putin Youth and many regular participants around as well as Limonov. The provocateurs were soon released without any charge while Limonov himself may face up to 15 days imprisonment for "disobeying police orders."

This provocation was also a signal to start a crackdown on the protesters, most of whom were standing steadily and silently according to the general plan. About 70 people were arrested. Police officers simply pointed at certain activists and they were immediately dragged into police vans. Many others were arrested for just being too close to the scene. Although no resistance was offered, policemen and soldiers beat people while dragging them. According to Russian bloggers, the police even went so far as to try to arrest an American diplomat, Vice-Consul Robert Bond who was observing the rally. Photos of Mr Bond surrounded by the police and showing them his ID card have been posted in many blogs.

I was arrested while trying to tweet what I saw. Apparently, one of the officers recognized me. Along with some 20 more people in the bus I was taken to a police station where we were charged with ... lighting flares, chanting slogans and throwing leaflets -- the ones that the Putin Youth were throwing. As the police officers were filling in the papers with these fake charges, we looked at the walls of the police station's lecture hall. Portraits of proud police officers as well as of Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev hung there next to Yagoda, Ezhov and Beriya, the three heads of Stalin's NKVD and Gulag.

As democracy and civil rights in Russia are diminishing with every year, the country is becoming more and more a police state. The voice of dissent is silenced by cynical and cruel country leadership. At the same time, Western public opinion and governments generally turn a blind eye to this trend in hope to buy the Kremlin's favour.

PS: Two days before the event, police SWAT had a drill in the nearby-Moscow city of Balashikha. They were trained, according to the script, to disperse "a group of senior citizens who demanded social support and blocked a federal highway." In order to do this, the whole arsenal was used by the police: water cannons, stun grenades and tear gas. The "pensioners" were blocked, many arrested. Bloggers called it ironically a "Russian welfare service."

Zachary Karabell: The Winds Are Still Blowing East

2009-10-13T16:10:57Z

While Washington is glued to the drama over health care, over the past few days, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has been in Beijing meeting with Chinese leaders including Premier Wen Jiabao and President Hu Jintao. In a series of communiqués, they celebrated the "strategic partnership" between the two countries and charted a course of future close relations.

Among others things, Putin - Russia's man behind the curtain who has also been spending considerable time in front of the curtain - signed off on six billion dollars worth of trade deals with Chinese counterparts, including moving ahead with a natural gas pipeline to open up the vast Chinese market to Russia's equally vast supply of natural gas. The two sides also discussed policies to contain and manage North Korea. Trade between the two countries is approaching $60 billion a year, and while that is a fraction of the more than $300 billion a year between China and the United States, it is hardly negligible.

For China, Russia is a vital supplier of raw materials and some ancillary higher-end equipment. For Russia, China is a vast market that is growing, compared to the European Union which is not. For both countries - who were once Cold War allies and then Cold War adversaries, these meetings signal a new move towards creating an economic and strategic access that bypasses the United States, and that alone is part of the appeal.

The United States wasn't at these meetings, but its presence was felt nonetheless. For both countries, America remains the great question mark - whether it will help or hinder their desires for greater power and prosperity. Russia is a shadow of what it was during the Cold War, and Putin has clearly chosen a path of autocracy that will work only if demand for raw materials - oil above all - remains elevated. China is the crucial element of that equation. China is emerging as the new power in the global economic pantheon, and it is intent on diversifying away from its dependence on the United States for capital and for markets. While it remains tightly bound to America, its leadership would like to find ways to become less so. Whether they will or not remains to be seen, but the embrace of Russia is a clear sign that they wish to become less engaged with the U.S. rather than more.

For now, the emerging Chinese-Russian friendship is hardly a threat to the United States, but the shifting sands signify that the world no longer needs to go through Washington or through Wall Street. As long as the United States remains as large as it is, it will be an unavoidable market for China and even if Putin bought a house off of Tiananmen Square, all the deals between China and Russia wouldn't change that. But the only way the U.S. will preserve its centrality to the global economy over the coming decades is to recognize that the winds are shifting east and that our attention and energy should be as well. The Taliban, Iraq and even Iran's nuclear ambitions are all vital issues, but none of those may shape the future of the United States and the world at large more than the rise of China.

China, Russia Agree On $3.5B Gas Deals

2009-10-13T12:24:44Z

BEIJING (Reuters) - Russia and China bolstered their close but increasingly imbalanced relationship on Tuesday when Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin ushered through a tentative gas supply agreement and deals worth $3.5 billion.

Carol Smaldino: Unlearning the "Perfect Lessons" From History

2009-10-10T13:50:00Z

Columbus Day is coming, one of those holidays that has started to make some of us cringe. Does anyone "discover" a land already inhabited by people who are functioning and trading and respecting the ecology of that land?

We have been trained to see "civilization" as a good thing, to celebrate Columbus Day with parades. And of course we are in a tough spot since, if Queen Isabella didn't have so many tantrums insisting on new territories, where would any of us be right at this very moment? But aside from liking a good parade, we might be provoked to want more than our schoolchildren observing the mandatory politically correct exhibits of Native Americans happily existing on the very terrain that may have actually been conquered rather than "discovered."

We might take two steps back from such righteousness and examine the part that America has played and still plays on the landscape of local and world history. Of course, if our perfectionist and otherwise righteous needs can begin to be challenged, there is the connection of the past to the present to discuss as well.

We have studied the reasons for Naziism, and we know the list includes Germany's depression of self-concept because of prior losses and unemployment. We have learned over and again that the fragile esteem of a nation can produce disaster.

Yet, we still don't teach our history by having our children play out different roles so they can feel the experience and come to know it subjectively -- from within. We don't usually study history so we can empathize since empathy with those who commit evil is something that offends our sense of righteousness, or we fear that doing so makes our own esteem too fragile for our taste.

For the most part we teach and learn facts to remember -- often to feel superior -- and for the most part we don't include the question of: Is any of this happening right here on our soil and in our schools that might have a similar results?

Instead, here are the lessons we do teach: The Nazis were barbarians, and we were not. Stalin was a tyrannical violent dictator which thank God we don't have and will never have. Yet, the Russians have gotten wind of this convenient way to reform history and to shift perspective. President Putin has done so in one felled swoop by charging the writers of textbooks in Russia to take the tyrant out of Stalin and leave the hero in because the Russian people need the heroism for their esteem.

Hmm, teaching history for esteem ... as in the North of America aren't we great because we freed the slaves while any carriage ride in Savannah or a simple conversation with a Southerner will hit us in the face when they mention the same Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression?" We don't meet in the middle to discuss the stories of those involved in memories, nor do we use the letters of children and grownups from all sides to learn the perspectives so that they reach our insides as well as the tips of our shortest of memory.

Conversely, we have been told that any learning has to have a context of the capacity to learn from mistakes. If mistakes are merely avoided, curiosity comes to a halt. But when most of us have been raised on combinations of harsh judgments from religions, from parents, from media, we dread taking risks of failure. So many people are either risk averse or they slide into self-destructive addictive behavior where judgment, good and bad, is on hold.

Liberals have been part of this equation, judging and feeling judged, for questioning whether the Israel side has some validity in the Middle East conflict, as we remain loath to admit the violent potential and revenge fantasies within ourselves. Carl Jung's statement that we are all potential criminals doesn't go over well in a crowd caught up in our own righteousness and the need to blame someone else.

Such is the righteousness that keeps us hating the bullies in the town hall health care meetings while ignoring the violent nature of bullying in almost every school in rich or poor neighborhoods alike. We cannot really afford to stay away from knowing our own backyards, and yet we won't allow ourselves to do so if the only thing waiting for us is our feeling like utter failures with no possible redemption of our self-respect.

To admit our part in emotional and educational and political violence, through our modeling of hatred and righteousness or through our passivity, we would have to begin to turn the notion of perfectionism on its head.

As we are all potential criminals, our imperfections make us all potential givers of life and creators of a different kind of community of cooperation. If we can take the sport out of humiliation, perhaps we could afford to learn that we have something in common with most aggressors, just as we do with those in touch with their love and caring.

Michael Russnow: Obama's Big Question: To Go or Not to Go, Copenhagen That is

2009-09-29T19:59:50Z

To paraphrase William Shakespeare's renowned query, made more appropriate since it took place in Denmark, the big question is why there is so much furor posed in the Main Stream Media citing Obama's mostly Republican critics over the president's decision to help Chicago win its bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics?

Obama's choice to attend the International Olympic Committee meeting in Copenhagen, in tandem with wife Michelle and prominent Chicago residents such as Oprah, is in line with other world leaders, such as Britain's prime minister Tony Blair who went much further to Singapore to secure London as the venue in 2012 and Russia's Vladimir Putin who flew an even greater distance to Guatemala when he successfully scored the 2014 Winter Olympics for the city of Sochi in his nation.

It may well be that these government leaders upped the ante regarding the expectations of the IOC delegates and it seems a small price to pay considering the relatively scant time Obama will attend to Chicago's big pitch.

Yet his Republican antagonists insist Obama's action will take time away from what they deem more significant undertakings, such as -- are you ready for a big laugh -- health care reform, which they have been sabotaging from the outset. They assert in their continuing and mostly lockstep reasoning that Obama is wasting time on such a "frivolous" enterprise rather than addressing the nuclear build-up in Iran, our economic quagmire and the continuing mess in Afghanistan.

Indeed, Senator Christopher Bond (R-Missouri) found it "baffling that he (Obama) has time to go to be on (sic) Copenhagen, to be on the Letterman show and almost every other channel except the Food Channel and Fox, but he doesn't have time to talk to General McChrystal."

In fact, as the White House points out, Obama regularly consults with McChrystal, the Afghanistan commander, but what do facts matter when the key agenda on the part of most Republican leaders is to run Obama down at every opportunity? Yet the newspapers (consider today's main story in the Los Angeles Times) and broadcast/cable programs, such as those hosted by Anderson Cooper and Lou Dobbs on CNN, Brian Williams on NBC, Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer on ABC, Katie Couric on CBS and Bill O'Reilly on Fox News have allowed what should have been a relatively apolitical and harmless action to be debated as possible irresponsibility on the part of the president.

And why? Obama is expected to be in Copenhagen for only several hours, and during the eight plus hours in the air to and from Washington he will be able to study reports and be in telephonic contact with everyone he needs, which is how he conducts much of his business in the first place.

It's not as if he's suddenly taking a weekend holiday and will be spending the day cavorting at Tivoli Gardens, and another traveling to Funen Island, the home of Hans Christian Andersen. His critics make it appear that, even during his relatively brief trip abroad, he will be totally incommunicado from pleading requests for his time by heads of state, cabinet secretaries and congressional leaders.

This brouhaha is nonsense and the only downside is if Chicago doesn't get the bid. Frankly, I'm not sure it will, considering the superior glamour of chief opponent Rio de Janeiro and the fact that South America has never hosted the games. And if that happens Obama will lose a bit of sparkle, but, as an advance warning to the Limbaugh fanatics and GOP doomsayers, I'd say so what? Obama is not a miracle maker and, hell, he will have tried. However, there's a stronger possibility that Chicago has little chance at all if he doesn't make the attempt.

And during it all he and the government will continue to perform any necessary actions. But this is a point the Republicans continuously deflect, because truth for them is lately in short supply.

Michael Russnow's website is www.ramproductionsinternational.com

David Paul: Shifting Gears on Missile Defense Marks a Shift in U.S. Policy Toward Russia, with Immediate Impact on Iran

2009-09-27T09:00:39Z

It is not clear how foreign policy strategy is being set in the Obama administration. But the execution has the appearances of a well-considered and tightly orchestrated dance. And when the music stopped this week, standing together on the stage, united in common purpose, were the Big Four of wars gone by -- the U.S., Great Britain, France and Russia.

The surprise this week was not the disclosure of a second, secret Iranian uranium enrichment site. Nor the ensuing condemnation and threats of collective action. What was surprising was the distinct voices that were heard. It was French President Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Brown whose declarations were strongest, with Russian President Medvedev joining shortly thereafter. Finally, an American president was able to speak a bit more softly -- and by the demonstration of common purpose suggest a bit more stick on behalf of the international community.

For the first time in a while, Iranian President Ahmadinejad seemed caught off guard. His normal swagger was muted, perhaps with the realization that his days of manipulating Russia against the West have ended. More perhaps with cold fear that it was he that was manipulated by Russia, and that his miscalculations may weaken him considerably in his battles to retain power at home.

Perhaps American foreign policy is coalescing around some basic realities of the world. There are real threats out there, and we do not have the capacity to fight them alone. The unilateralism of the past decade was defined less by our determination to go it alone into war than by the belief that we could fight all battles and recast all nations in our own image. Almost without exception -- perhaps China, as our lead banker, was the exception -- we demanded fealty to our image of democratic progress from all of our antagonists.

But when you are fighting on all fronts, your ability to build enduring coalitions on any one of them is diminished. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has long articulated this view. Yes, as he has suggested for the better part of a decade, Russia and the United States have more issues that unite them than divide them. And yes, when presented with the top five issues of concern facing the U.S. in the international arena -- perhaps including among them Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Islamic fundamentalism, drug trafficking and nuclear proliferation -- Russia was a potentially valuable ally in all of them.

But the problem was that Russia had their own top five list, and Lavrov has long complained that if there was to be a partnership, it could not be one-sided. Russia's concerns had to matter as well. Yes, Russia was prepared to be an ally in the Global War on Terror, but the Russian list had to be on the table. And they had a different list. Chechnya. Georgia. NATO. Missile defense. Encirclement. Status.

Russia's list was fundamental to the continued integrity of the Russian nation. Russians may be paranoid, but the simple fact is that people are out to get them. U.S. official policy has been and continues to be one of encirclement, while many prominent voices go well beyond that -- most notably Carter-era National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski -- and argue that U.S. policy should be the dismemberment of the Russian state.

The dismemberment of the Russian state is not so far fetched. Before the fall of the Soviet empire, the Soviet Union claimed a population of nearly 300 million people. Today, Russia is a nation of just over 140 million, and it is shrinking rapidly. With low birth rates, high infant mortality, short life expectancy, and minimal immigration, by mid-century Russia's population is projected to decline by more than 20 percent, to approximately 110 million.

The prospect of Chechen independence -- and the demands for independence that would likely ensue from other minority groups should Chechnya succeed -- further threatened the future of Russia. This fear explained in large measure Russia's vociferous objection to NATO's declaration of independence for Kosovo, and Russia's steadfast claim that the international community can only grant nationhood through the legal powers granted to the United Nations.

Russia's intransigence in dealings with the United States is rooted in its defense of national self-interest. For several years, Putin and Medvedev have been intent in their actions in international affairs -- from supporting Iran to instigating the Ukrainian natural gas crisis -- to force the United States to deal with them and their issues.

U.S. actions over the past nine months indicate that U.S. policy has evolved, and that we may finally be paying attention. The nuance is the distinction between what we say and what we do. The Bush administration talked about partnership and an alignment of interests, but took every opportunity to dismiss Russian concerns on the ground.

Now, the process seems to have been inverted. Vice President Biden -- an early and vociferous backer of the Kosovo action that was so objectionable to Russia -- has emerged as the voice of American support for the process of democratization and continued support for Ukraine and Georgia.

But Putin and Medvedev are realists, less moved by words than action. At the same time as Biden was talking the talk, the administration was walking a different path. During the early months of the administration, Russia threatened U.S. resupply routes into Afghanistan, and U.S. access to a key air base in Kyrgyzstan. One can imagine at that moment that the administration looked down the road at the real threats that loomed, and took a hard look at the facts on the ground. One can imagine that at that moment, they weighed the real impact on the ability of the U.S. to pursue its strategic goals and determined that Russia was -- as Lavrov long suggested -- better to have as an ally than face as an obstacle and an adversary.

It really was never a question. After all, for all the rhetoric -- whether from Biden, Bush or Cheney -- about U.S. support for Georgia or a common defense of Ukraine -- neither we nor our European allies have had or likely would ever have the willingness to go to war with Russia in their Near Abroad. Our actions may have been designed to tweak them and continue the great game wherever possible, but never with the intention of real escalation.

One question this week has been how long ago did the U.S. learn of Iran's second enrichment facility. Was it many months ago, and were the strategic moves to bring ourselves closer to an effective alliance with Russia -- such as shifting our policy on strategic missile defense in Poland -- in preparation for this next phase of the confrontation with the Iranian regime? Or was it simply fortuitous that the steps had been taken, and the groundwork had been laid that would allow Russia and the U.S. to stand together against a common threat?

Perhaps it doesn't matter. But it does matter that our foreign policy may be built less on rhetoric, and more on our capacity to build effective alliances against real, and common, threats.

Robert Amsterdam: Clan Politics Unite Caracas, Moscow, and Tehran

2009-09-18T14:10:59Z

The recent visits to Moscow and Tehran by Hugo Chavez raise a number of concerns about the deepening relations between Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

The motivation behind the Russia-Iran-Venezuela alliance is often misunderstood. On the one hand, there is the narrative that these governments are pursuing national interests, seeking to deepen their security against ever-present external threats and accrue regional power. Others argue that the alliance is driven by an attempt to build an "alternative architecture" of global relations, one that is conveniently unconcerned with democracy and human rights and bound solely by the common value of anti-Americanism.

Both these assumptions are dangerously misleading. In reality, the foreign policies of these three states are driven by the personal interests of clans that control the highest offices of their governments.

In addition to sharing a national leader-for-life mentality, the leaders of these three countries regularly employ the powers of the state in support of clan-controlled businesses, especially in the energy and arms sectors. When Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin travels to Venezuela (he visits Caracas with extraordinary frequency), there is little to no separation between his diplomatic duties and personal financial interests in inking deals between Rosneft and PDVSA. When the Iranians travel to Caracas, they are given a red carpet welcome to jointly operated factories and the assistance of elaborate money-laundering networks.

Chavez's family and close-knit clan of loyal military officers have become multibillionaires under his rule. Known as the boligarchs, they benefit directly from the alliance of Russia and Iran since it lends much-needed credibility and legitimacy to their plunder of the country. In exchange, Chavez last week visited Moscow and announced that Venezuela would recognize the independence of the Georgian breakaway regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. On the way, he stopped in Turkmenistan to invite the president to join the Russian-inspired gas cartel -- despite the fact that Venezuela is a net importer of natural gas from Colombia.

It is important to recognize that reciprocally reinforcing mechanisms of corruption hide behind the facade of state institutions in all three countries. These systems are inherently duplicitous, using laws and instruments of state authority to enhance rather than control corruption. It is corruption cloaked in nationalism, religion and self-defense. All three countries -- with Venezuela far in the lead -- have unstable civil-military relations that are fraught with the tensions of unlimited power and limited ability to control some key interest groups. Ironically, Iran is the most pluralist of the three.

What are the symptoms of clan rule?

• The horizontal of incompetence. Rather than a vertical of power, there is a horizontal of incompetence, characterized by a systemic inability to delegate power because of the lack of trust and poorly defined institutional responsibility.

• Short-termism. The ongoing internal fights over property in all three countries leave elites focused more on internal than external battles. Policy flip-flops are the rule rather than the exception. The only constant is the need for crisis. From the Georgian war to the FARC to the virulent anti-Semitism of Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the fire of the invective is inversely proportional to the need to mobilize security forces and keep internal opposition off-balance. The speed of opposition crackdowns is the one constant.

• Definitional anti-Americanism. The image of the Great Satan is another constant that needs to be continually kept alive. For leaders who speak of multivector diplomacy, there is a compulsive need to be obsessed with U.S. power and to foster anti-American attitudes as a tool to unite their societies. Yet in the face of the Obama administration, readiness for this is becoming harder to sustain.

Russia's legislation to ring-fence the "strategic sectors" of the economy provides a compelling example of clan-based interests at work. It is more accurate to call this the siloviki retirement plan because it protects businesses controlled by key individuals around the prime minister. But even better, it allows them to enrich their friends through tied sales between military, energy, and civilian nuclear technology. And now, if you are Chavez, throwing in recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia will give you a cheap credit to buy 100 Russian tanks.

The crackdowns on civil liberties recently in evidence in Tehran, Caracas and Moscow reflect the insecurity of three juntas that lack internal legitimacy and are fighting to maintain the private property they have amassed. Whether it is the Venezuelan boligarchs, the Revolutionary Guard or the siloviki, the torture and cruelty of the jails and show trials are directly related to their interest in safeguarding assets rather than ideology. All three leaderships are engaged in a quest for impunity and the possession of nuclear weapons sought by Iran and Venezuela is part of that process. The success of North Korea is not lost on these leaders. It is small wonder that Russia has so little interest in resolving the nuclear impasse over Iran.

The real danger, however, is that we too often confuse cause and symptom and fail to recognize how false fronts operate in these countries. Nearly all analyses, whether internal or external, see their systems through a prism that hides the power of clans and cabals. In order to formulate effective policies to respond to the new alliance of Russia, Venezuela and Iran, our first step should be to better understand what is motivating such odd bedfellows.

This opinion article was originally published in The Moscow Times.

Vladimir Putin Signals Plan To Reclaim Old Job As Russian President

2009-09-11T16:30:27Z

Vladimir Putin today gave his strongest indication so far that he is planning to get his old job back as president, hinting that he is considering a return in 2012.

Speaking to a group of scholars and international journalists, Putin said that he and his successor, Dmitry Medvedev, would take a joint decision over which one of them would hold the post next. Putin stepped down as president in 2008, becoming Russia's prime minister, installing Medvedev in his place.

Ginny Dougary: The Man Who Changed the World: An Interview with Mikhail Gorbachev

2009-09-06T23:42:40Z

Mikhail Gorbachev is still a man who strides the global stage -- and maintains a keen interest in domestic politics. He talks to Ginny Dougary about power, presidents, Putin and life after Raisa.

Photo: Graham Wood

Mikhail Gorbachev may be pushing 80, but when he talks, people still listen, particularly (or, perhaps, exclusively) outside his own country, and that includes the 44th president of the United States. The first and last President of the former Soviet Union is telling me about his meeting with Barack Obama, during the latter's extended honeymoon period, not so long ago, when Gorbachev said: "'I congratulate you because two months after the election your popularity was growing and your popularity is still growing.' He looked at me and said, 'Just you wait, it'll go down.'" A gusty blast of a laugh. "And I liked him saying that."

The man who was determined to modernize the USSR through glasnost and perestroika (the last time Russian words tripped off the tongue), which led to its collapse and transformed the world beyond, is now greatly in demand as a speaker in the United States. He remembers one particular lecture, three years ago during the Bush administration, when he was faced with the following question: "What would you recommend for America now that we are in a very difficult situation?"

I said, "Well, to give advice to other countries, particularly to Americans, would be wrong. It's for you to sort out what you need to do." But nevertheless, they said, "What's your advice?"

And I said, "When we were putting an end to the Cold War, we said that the world needs to rethink old problems. We need to understand where we are. We need to start thinking about the fact that half the population of the world lives on one or two dollars a day. Sixty per cent of the ecosystems have been broken. The atmosphere has been polluted. Oceans and rivers have been polluted. If we just leave it as it is, if we just continue down this path, then this will end very badly. We were saying that every country needs to change."

I said to those Americans who were asking my advice, "You had this euphoria of victory, of the West winning the Cold War. You thought that you did not need any changes because everything was going so well for the West. But after the euphoria will come disappointment and you're already seeing that it was a mistake to glory in that victory. So if you insist on me giving advice, I will certainly not give you a kind of menu or a timetable for change, but I do believe that what America needs is its own perestroika."

So are you saying that Obama is the new you?

Let me finish. Both me and my translator [Pavel Palazchenko, who has worked with Gorbachev for years, and attended the US-Soviet summit talks that led to the end of the Cold War] were amazed when that huge audience, about 10,000 people, gave me a standing ovation and I said to my translator, "There is something happening in America. Change will come to America." And the most important thing is that Obama identified that need for change. It's the challenge that he felt and I really give him a lot of credit for that. I like him also because he's very intelligent and very democratically minded -- which, of course, doesn't mean that he doesn't have firmness, because he does. He also has the will.

Gorbachev may be our favorite Russian export but our desire to transform him into a cuddly international treasure -- how stern can a man be, one might think, who tolerates his universal nickname "Gorby"? -- is wide of the mark. He talks in a series of speeches, brooking no interruptions, which means our interview is peppered with impatient slap-downs: "I have not yet finished," and "Let me say something first and then I'll reply."

It's hard to know whether it is Gorbachev or his interpreter who is responsible for the occasional brusqueness of tone. At one point, when I am saying that if he wants to criticize the British as well as the Americans, go ahead, I have broad shoulders, his answer sounds quite rude: "So what? I'm sure you would find things to say to Russia so I am very frank to you..."

I ask him what has been his proudest moment and he says, "Pride is not really my feeling," and then goes on at such length, taking in what seems to be the whole history of the 20th century, that I must have conveyed my feeling of despair. (Burying my head in my hands may have been the giveaway.) What is so frustrating is that, of all the notable figures I have interviewed, Gorbachev is the one who has done most to change the map of the world. I have so many questions but only a scant hour in which to put them. An attempt to sway him by saying he is an historical figure fails -- "Don't consign me to history" -- but it does make him smile. Living history, I mean. "Okay, if it's living history, I accept that." Later, he says: "You know, Chekhov said that one has to speak very briefly but..." You are, perhaps, more like Tolstoy, is my attempt at a Russian joke, which falls flat.

What is startling, from someone whose name is synonymous with attempting to effect far-reaching change in his own country, and who is still outspoken (although not enough for some) about its failings under Medvedev and Putin, is how angry Gorbachev feels about outsiders' criticism. "The British, the Americans want us to be like them," he says.

First of all, that shouldn't be the demand, I guess, we never demanded others be like us. There should be competition and exchanges between different countries, but there are certainly certain universal values and that is freedom and democracy. We still have a way to go towards implementing those values and we can be quite critical in our own country about many things.

We are seeing ourselves that there is still a lot to be done by us to achieve democracy. And so I say to Americans: "You want us to be like you but I can tell you, it took you 200 years to build your democracy yet you want us to do the same thing in 200 days." And I say, "Well, I know we are more talented than you are, but not as much as that." And they understand, they react to this.

He says that Russians continue to be misunderstood, maybe willfully so. "My first book as General Secretary was called Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World, and its first sentence was, 'We want to be understood.' Even now, we want to be understood. And there are quite a few people for whom Russia is a hindrance, a problem, which is crazy."

Can you be more specific?

Let me give you some facts because you may think it's just words. During Yeltsin's time, when he abandoned the evolutionary path of reform and used cowboy methods, shock therapy that ruined the country's economy....Many people lost their jobs, and many people were not paid their wages or salary for months, sometimes years. During this time we had all those delegations of visitors coming to Russia and everyone applauded Yeltsin. I was watching this and I thought, "Well, how can that be?" And I finally concluded that it was a kind of political activism at that time on the part of the people who actually enjoyed the fact that Russia was down.

But you cannot put Russia down on its knees [a thump on the table] and hold it there because Russia will ultimately pull out. And it was that kind of attitude of the West towards Russia in the Nineties that changed the attitude of many Russians. The euphoria in favor of Europe and America disappeared when people saw that attitude, and it ruined the trust that existed. I think that was the most important thing.

In late 1992, I traveled through Russia with a British businessman who had lost his own empire in controversial circumstances and was attempting to restore his millions in the new frontier. What was most striking was the sense of a country in transition, hungry to embrace change and enjoy the free-market benefits speculative Westerners seemed eager to offer -- naturally, since there were profits to be made.

One of the business meetings took place in Brezhnev's old shooting lodge, and in the guest book was an inscription in a babyish, perhaps drunken, scrawl to the host: "Thank you very much. You are a good man. This is me. Yeltsin. November 1991." (The year he was elected President.) In 1993, a year after my trip, Yeltsin was impeached after relations between the President and parliament had collapsed. There was a 10-day conflict with the deadliest street fights in Moscow since 1917. On New Year's Eve, 1999, Yeltsin offered a surprise resignation and announced Putin as his successor.

Gorbachev initially supported Putin, and still does apparently (he backed Russia's role in last year's war with Georgia, for instance), but this has not stopped his candid criticism at various points. In 2005, Pravda reported him commenting on a controversial reform (abolishing communist-era entitlements to benefits) that enraged pensioners: "Lawmakers did not think about people when they were discussing the law. Public organizations, science -- everything has been left aside. In my opinion, such an approach to elderly people can evoke only indignation for normal people."

Yet in 2007, he endorsed Putin as President in the parliamentary elections: "It is a fact that within Russia, Putin is supported by up to 80 percent of the population. [When Gorbachev last ran for President in 1996, he won only 0.5 percent of the vote.] For me that is a more persuasive argument as I live in Russia. He has brought stabilization to Russia. Not everyone would have been able to cope with the kind of legacy that he inherited from Boris Yeltsin."

This was the year that Gordon Brown expelled four Russian diplomats in response to Moscow's refusal to allow the extradition of Andrei Lugovoy, the man suspected of poisoning Alexander Litvinenko -- the former KGB officer who had accused the Russian secret services of staging various terrorism acts in order to bring Putin to power. The Russian foreign ministry described the action as "immoral" and "provocative". Brown said he wouldn't allow "lawlessness" to take a grip in London. It was the first time in 11 years that Russian officials had been thrown out of Britain and marked the biggest chill in relations since the end of the Cold War. Lugovoy, a businessman and politician who has always denied any involvement in the murder, remains in Russia where he enjoys immunity from prosecution.

In 2006, Anna Politkovskaya, the Russian journalist and human rights activist, was shot dead in the lift of her apartment block. She had made her name reporting from Chechnya, and was a well-known critic of the conflict and Putin's role in it. In January this year, her lawyer was assassinated. No one has been convicted of either murder.

Earlier this year, in a stinging rebuke, Gorbachev denounced Putin and his United Russia Party as "the party of bureaucrats and the worst version of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union". But why was he not more damning of Putin two years earlier? Was he, perhaps, fearful of what might happen to him or his family?

Why should I be afraid? No. I can say that I understand how difficult things are for the President because I was President myself. I was in his shoes, in his skin and therefore I understand the situation better. And that's why I supported Putin and still support him. On the other hand, on certain issues, I speak out very openly and directly. For example, I've been saying for some time that the election system needs to be changed. I have also been saying that there's been a lot of talk about fighting corruption but there is no real fight against corruption.

There are things for which the government should be criticized because we have seen these terrible tragedies when journalists have been killed, so we are entitled to speak openly and recently, yes, indeed, we have been speaking very strongly to the Government. Sometimes I feel that the Government itself is pained to understand that it cannot guarantee people's safety and security. Many crimes of this kind have not been solved, and I have been saying that it is wrong that the killers have not been found. And many other people have been saying critical things as well.

But nothing happens. "I wouldn't say nothing -- but it is certainly true that some of the highest profile crimes have not been solved. And I say that I doubt that everything possible has been done to solve those crimes."

Change begins with ideas, he says, which are initially heresies: "What about Jesus Christ? I say that he was a precursor of idealists; a precursor of socialists." Does he believe in Christianity? "As an idea, yes. The ideals of communism are similar to the ideals of Christianity." He calls himself a social democrat who is "still committed to the ideas of socialism".

What is curious is that in all Gorbachev's speechifying, he neglects to take the opportunity to make one for his own party -- the Independent Democratic Party of Russia -- founded by himself and his billionaire friend, Alexander Lebedev (the new owner of London's Evening Standard), in late September last year. The two Russians, between them, own 49 per cent of Novaya Gazeta, the independent (read: anti-Putin) newspaper which employed the late Politkovskaya, one of four of the paper's investigative journalists who have been killed. (Lebedev has offered $1 million -- £600,000 -- for information which would lead to the conviction of her assassins.) According to reports, the party had planned to register this summer and hold its founding congress this month.

Gorbachev attacks what he calls "the winners' complex...the disease of the ruling classes, particularly the beneficiaries of the previous system, who I think are the most responsible for the global economic crisis." At the summit in Paris marking the end of the Cold War, "We said that Europe should re-emphasize such issues as fighting poverty, such as the environment. We said that society should not be based on hyper-consumption. You know, all those yachts of rich people that fill the seas and the bays..."

Oligarchs? "Naturally," he laughs. "They became so rich because they violated certain norms of morality and certain values. They often stopped at nothing and that's why many of them find themselves in jail."

His friend Lebedev, a former KGB spy who fell in love with London on a posting to the Russian Embassy, where he worked undercover until 1992, is certainly wealthy and influential enough to qualify as an oligarch. He bought the National Reserve Bank, which became one of the largest banks in Russia, and his company owns a third of Aeroflot. His estimated fortune (pre-crash) was $3.1 billion (£1.8 billion) and he maintains that it's still around $2.5 billion (£1.5 billion). He is scathing about his fellow Russian oligarchs, saying: "They don't read books. They don't go to exhibitions. They think the only way to impress anyone is to buy a yacht." (Something, he is proud to say, he has never owned.)

What Lebedev certainly knows how to do well is throw a swell party. He and his almost theatrically handsome 28-year-old London-based son, Evgeny, run the Raisa Gorbachev Foundation named after Gorbachev's wife who died of leukemia in 1999. The charity was set up in Britain in 2006 and has since raised almost £4 million to support children with cancer. In 2008, the foundation -- as part of a decision to extend its programe beyond Russia -- formed an agreement with Marie Curie Cancer Care in the UK.

Every year, the Lebedevs throw a fundraising gala with a decidedly A* guest list. The first bash was at Althorp House, Earl Spencer's family pile. This year's do was at Lebedev's home, Stud House -- where Lord Byron once lived -- in the grounds of Hampton Court Palace.

The fourth annual Russian Midsummer Fantasy gala is an extravaganza of positively Tsarist splendour. The women all seem to be toweringly tall and stick-thin, and although Sophie Dahl (with fiancé Jamie Cullum) and Yasmin Le Bon attend, not all of them are supermodels. Sarah Brown and Tina Brown are there, David Walliams, Alex James, J. K. Rowling, David Hockney, Boris Johnson and Evening Standard editor Geordie Greig. It is one of Vanessa Redgrave's first public appearances after the tragic death of her daughter, Natasha, but then her younger daughter, Joely, 44, is currently dating Evgeny Lebedev. Away from the house and the exotic Thirties spiegeltent, Ukrainian synchronized swimmers in retro red swimsuits and petal caps perform complicated patterns for hours in a natural pond, while deer graze in the grounds beyond.

Gorbachev, the guest of honor, seems totally at ease in this wham-glam company, walking slightly stiffly, supported by his pretty granddaughter, Anastasia. He smiles when we meet again and delights in greeting me, on more than one occasion, as his "torturer". My American friend, a big Gorby fan, says that he has the charmer's knack of making you feel totally special, if only for a few brief moments.

We don't stay for the dinner (it costs £15,000 a table), but read about it in the social columns afterwards: J. K. Rowling and Peter Kay bopping, while DJ Mark Ronson spins; Chrissie Hynde's acoustic set; Cossacks hoofing it to Run DMC, and the amusing detail that among the items in the silent auction is the Louis Vuitton bag "as modelled by Gorbachev" in that famous advertising campaign. The former Soviet leader is impervious to suggestions that the ads may have cheapened his legacy, pointing out that he also appeared in a Pizza Hut commercial because his foundation needed money, and would welcome more work in that line. The surprise highlight of the evening was Gorbachev taking to the stage to perform a song he used to sing to his late wife, dedicating it to Raisa on the tenth anniversary of her death.

A few days earlier, in the conference room of a discreetly luxurious West End hotel, where we conducted the interview, I had asked Gorbachev if he found his bereavement any easier to cope with as the years went by.

Well, time, of course, is doing its work...but still this was the most difficult, the hardest thing in my life and particularly because Raisa's death came so unexpectedly.

When a wife whom one loves so much passes away, this is irreplaceable. But I'm not totally lonely. I still have a daughter and two granddaughters and now a great-granddaughter, Sasha, so...

Perhaps it is the thought of being such a substantial paterfamilias that makes him laugh so violently.

Would Raisa have wanted him to marry again? He tells a story which is not immediately to the point, but charming nonetheless.

She liked that little joke about the different ages of a woman. You know, there is a little girl, a young girl, a young lady, a young woman...a young woman, a young woman...and then the old woman is dead.

So when she would say, "I don't want to be an old woman," I would say, "You will never be an old woman." She was so lively; her character was so lively. She had something in her of the nature of a princess. A princess from the countryside. [A long pause.] Sometimes it's better to speak without thinking. So of course what happened was irreparable, and I have a feeling of guilt for her.

It haunts you? "There is still some of that feeling because it was the drama of perestroika and of our life then....That was something ultimately that she was not able to bear. She was a very vulnerable person."

When I express surprise, he corrects himself: "She was strong but she had to endure a great deal." The coup in 1991, when hardliners placed Gorbachev and his family under house arrest in their dasha in Crimea, must have been horribly traumatic. As were the events which led to his forced resignation on Christmas Day, followed by the formal dissolution of the Soviet Union the next day.

"She said, 'I don't want to die,' and then, 'You know, of the two of us, it would be better if I die first.' She said, 'You'd marry,' and I said, 'How can you talk to me like this!'" More laughter. "'What's on your mind?' And she said, 'Well, I just mention it.' And when I recall that, I feel that perhaps she had a premonition."

When Raisa was in hospital, he continues, she received thousands of letters from people, "and that was a great consolation to her. But she said something that I have included in the book I am writing now, 'Do I have to die in order for people to believe me?'"

What did she mean by that? "She meant that quite a few people were not happy about her and had been very critical of her and the position she took because she was different. I had always said to her, right from the beginning, 'You should behave as yourself. Just as yourself.'" When I press him to explain more fully, Gorbachev says: "For that, you will have to read my book."

When we started the interview, Gorbachev had remarked -- almost as though it surprised him -- that he is older now than Brezhnev was when he died. So does he feel his age? "Yes, yes," he sighs. And yet he continues to submit himself, aged 78, to a punishing schedule, flying around the globe, on his mission to right the wrongs of the world. "One feels the age and, yes, sometimes one doesn't feel too well...the body actually ages faster than the soul." How about the mind? "I think I'm in good shape there, no problems with that."

It's interesting that, as an atheist, he believes in the concept of a soul: "Only seven percent of the human being has been studied by science. I think it has been medically established that there is a soul, but this is something that science still doesn't understand."

I ask whether he also believes, in that case, that he is a spiritual person, and Palazchenko's translation takes so long that I comment on it. "Spiritual has a different meaning in Russian," he says. "So I had to explain [to Gorbachev] what you meant by 'spiritual'."

The Gorbachevs met when they were fellow students at Moscow State University -- Raisa was studying philosophy; Mikhail, law. His family were peasants, working the land in the village of Privolnoye in the south of the Russian republic. He helped his father operate a combine harvester and in his CV boasts: "I am particularly proud of my ability to detect a fault in the combine instantly, just by the sound of it." It was at university that he joined the Communist Party and, soon after, started his rise through its ranks. In 1985, he was elected General Secretary of the Party Central Committee, the top job, and began the process of democratisation.

When he talks about the couple's early days together, it becomes clear both how unusual Raisa was and also the part she played -- which was news to me -- in shaping her husband's desire for reform.

Let me tell you the history [of the rise of charity initiatives in Russia]. When Raisa first got involved in this, it was still in Soviet times. She visited a cancer section of a hospital for children, and young mothers rushed to her, some begged at her feet, and she came home really shocked. She was a very impressionable person and she said, "What can I do? I am a teacher, a professor, and I know very little about this." So she said, "You must help me. We cannot leave such pain and such pleas without an answer." And I think this is a test, by the way, of the spirituality that you asked about.

If a person is indifferent to the problems of his fellow people, to children, to older people, then there is definitely a flaw in that person's spirituality. But let's not make this a seminar in sophistry. When Raisa took this initiative, to get involved in charity, to support hospitals and to support some cultural projects, the initial reaction in our society was that people didn't understand. Now people understand that the state [alone cannot provide all the help] and that we need to help poorer families, and it is actually welcomed when such help is given.

Gorbachev says that even though Stalin had been dead for a long time when he came to power, "much of the atmosphere that Stalin created still existed and people were afraid of talking to the Government". Glasnost (transparency) came first, then perestroika (restructuring).

We said very directly, "Our people are free to speak their minds, free to write, free to assemble and discuss." We said, "This is the people's right, this is in the constitution and this will be fulfilled." And what glasnost meant was that the entire society was set in motion. I really wanted to make people feel that they can actually achieve something, and they can get the Government's attention -- and as a result of protests [about pollution], we closed down more than 1,000 factories.

What I want him to explain is what made him so unique. Where did his vision come from, and what gave him the strength of character to act on and implement it? But Gorbachev is unable to shed any light, other than to say that even as a young boy, he was always a leader, and that his greatest influences were his maternal grandfather (a veteran communist who narrowly escaped Stalin's death squad when he was accused of Trotskyism), his father and, above all, Russian literature.

I had heard that Russians tend to be hyper-critical of the British, not helped by the Brown-Putin stand-off. Is that so? "I think in our society there is still the view that Britain is an open country and the land of opportunity. So I wouldn't say that Russians rush to judgment about Britain. But you know what Bismarck once said, 'It takes time for Russians to saddle their horses, but when they do, they move very fast.'"

He has been a visitor here, he says, maybe 20 or 30 times over the years. So which British Prime Minister has he most admired? "Well, in terms of the outcome of the results, certainly it was Margaret Thatcher. [Who, famously, said she liked him, adding: "We can do business together."] But I also have a very high opinion of Tony Blair."

And Gordon Brown? "I like him very much. He is very intelligent, and it seems to me that he was the person who actually alerted the world to the financial problems. But that's not all. You know, he acts in a certain environment....There is something up above that creates that environment and in that environment, he has to implement his plans and his strategies."

What on earth does that mean, "something up above"? Gorbachev laughs: "I'm speaking about this crisis. I think that one day we will understand what are the sources of the crisis that has now engulfed the whole world."

So one last question. Why does he feel that David Cameron is not ready to be Prime Minister? "I didn't say that. See, that happens. Someone quoted me even though I didn't say that." Well, let me ask the question and you can respond. What does he think? "No, the interview is over," and Gorbachev and his interpreter think this is the best joke of all.

This November, 20 years ago, the Berlin Wall came down, the most potent symbol of the collapse of communism. Gorbachev has always said that his aim had been to fix the regime, not to be the instrument of its downfall. "I am a resolute opponent of the break-up of the Union. Personally, as a politician, I lost," he has said. "But the idea that I conveyed and the project that I carried out, it played a huge role in the world and the country."

In 1990, Gorbachev was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his part in allowing the mostly peaceful revolutions that took place across the Eastern Bloc. His fellow Russians were not so impressed, summed up by the view of one minister: "We must remember this certainly was not the prize for economics." Another view, from his supporter Lebedev is that: "He gave our people freedom but we just can't learn how to use it."

I would have liked to ask Gorbachev whether he felt there was something inherently tragic in the dramatic success of his democratization leading to the destruction of the Union, which he also believed in passionately, but it seemed too complicated to put to him via his interpreter.

Perhaps he answered it, in any case, without knowing the question. I had asked him whether he considered that he had a romantic soul. He laughed again, something he did a lot, considering that I was his torturer. "I have not said that about myself, but it is a view that is common in Russia, where they call me 'the Last Romantic'. There, they call me an idealist. And my reply is that it is the idealists who move the world."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6816872.ece
http://www.ginnydougary.co.uk

Diane Francis: Venezuela's Moscow Maneuvers

2009-08-18T11:18:53Z

All enlightened governments, including Canada's, which just signed an investment agreement, should deem Venezuela a "no-go" zone. This is because the country, under Hugo Chavez, has descended into a kleptocracy. Industries like coffee and rice have just been nationalized and confiscations without compensation are underway.

Two Canadian mining companies are victims, as are Venezuelan business interests, and there are gross human rights abuses, says Canadian lawyer and activist Robert Amsterdam. In his white paper entitled "The Erosion of Judicial Autonomy under Hugo Chavez," Amsterdam and his Venezuelan legal colleagues recite a case involving Eligio Cedeno who has been jailed without charges for two years because he opposes the Chavez regime. Here is their executive summary:

"The rule of law and liberal democracy in Venezuela are crumbling under the leadership of President Hugo Chavez. Chavez has subverted the fundamental institutions of government converting theminto tools for maintaining and consolidating personal power," they wrote.
"He and his supporters harass those who do not align themselves politically and ideologically with the Bolivarian Revolution. They use various means to persecute their opponents, including assaults in the media, violence, censorship and false criminal charges. Chavez has gained complete control of the criminal justice system. A growing class of political prisoners has emerged, including businessman Eligio Cedeno."

"Intervention by the international community is both necessary and appropriate in order to preserve the rights of Venezuelan citizens."

Official theft
So where is the Canadian and other governments when it comes to preserving the rights of foreign firms and individuals. Take the case of the two embattled Canadian mining companies -- Crystallex International Corporation and Gold Reserve Inc. They have spent years exploring and millions obtaining rights to develop two world-class ore bodies in Venezuela only to have them confiscated, de facto, through illegal means. Both trade for pennies as a result.
Crystallex's statement in its 2009 Second Quarter was:

"The Company's principal asset is its interest in the Las Cristinas gold project located in Bolivar State, Venezuela. The Company's interests in the Las Cristinas concessions are derived from a Mine Operating Contract (the "MOC") with the Corporacion Venezolana de Guayana (the "CVG") which grants Crystallex exclusive rights to develop and mine the gold deposits on the Las Cristinas property."

"The Company has not received a response from the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources ("MinAmb") to its June 16, 2008 appeal of the Director General of the Administrative Office of Permits at MinAmb denying its request for the Permit for the Las Cristinas project."
"On March 2, 2009, the CVG confirmed that the Company was in compliance with the MOC. This corroborates the Company's position that is not in default of the MOC and there is no change in control under the terms of the MOC. The Company plans to remain compliant with the MOC in order to protect the option of proceeding to international arbitration."

That's theft through government obstruction and stone-walling.

The other case involves a combination of Venezuelan tactics to obstruct and reduce the value of Gold Reserve Inc. combined with a hostile takeover bid this winter by Rusoro Mining Inc., a Moscow favorite. The bid failed because it was declared illegal by the Ontario Superior Court because a financial intermediary was collecting fees from both parties without disclosing this to Gold Reserve.

Canada bye bye unless you bear arms
Lest anyone discount this as just the usual maneuverings in the world of mining, the secret intentions to steal from the Canadians were published last fall in a blog out of China.

"Venezuela said it will offer a joint venture to Russian-owned miner Rusoro to operate the Las Cristinas and Brisas gold projects, currently under contract to two Canadian companies, Mining minister Rodolfo Sanz on Thursday. He told a Russian delegation that a memorandum of understanding would soon be signed with Rusoro. It appeared that Sanz intends to replace the Canadian companies who operate the projects that contain some of Latin America's largest gold deposits, with Rusoro, but he did not mention their names."

Why would this be happening, given the fact that the Canadian companies had signed a deal and invested millions in good faith already?

"What's happening in Venezuela is not understood by Canadians," said Amsterdam in a recent interview. "Chavez has political prisoners, he is killing opposition without due process.I have a client who is victim to phony charges, no trial and has been in jail for two years. there are two million people on Chavez's black list who are denied decent jobs. In the meantime, he is causing problems with neighboring countries and has bought US$10 billion worth of arms from Russia. We just don't get the danger."

Lloyds of London does. In June, it withdrew maritime "war risk" policy cover for Venezuela, "the first such exclusion of a Latin American country for 20 years. the move is the latest sign of Venezuela's deteriorating business environment," wrote Oil and Gas Insight in June.

Sarah Walker: Why Town Hallers Are Right To Fear Russia

2009-08-13T12:13:31Z

"This is about the dismantling of this country," Katy Abram, 35, shouted at Mr. Specter, drawing one of the most prolonged rounds of applause. "We don't want this country to turn into Russia."

No, we don't want this country to turn into Russia. But the facts are alarming. Consider the following: In 2008, Sarah Palin stated that she could see Russia from her house.

Coincidence?

No.

The actual landmass of Russia is moving towards us at a rapid and alarming pace. Leading scientists predict that within the next six months, Russia will actually be on top of the United States. According to a Scientific Report, first, we'll look up and we'll think that we're in a scene from Independence Day or War of the Worlds. We'll be convinced that aliens have invaded. But no, it will be the actual country of Russia, hovering above us. And Obama will peer down from his perch on top. He'll be riding it like it's a skate board, holding hands with Putin. Obama will be all like, "Look out down below! Hope you don't miss the sun...or your lives!" And with a terrifying "Bwhahaha," he'll send the entirety of the land of Russia crashing down upon us, destroying our Mom and Pop insurance companies and unspoiled Arctic and gleaming rivers and shining cities.

In their place, bears on chains and free bears and red faced vodka-swilling children wearing bearskin hats and men and women who look like bears will roam our once pristine and free land. Waifish supermodels with unpronounceable names and tiny ballerinas and gymnasts will paint themselves red in our blood and practice Communism. They'll dance on our graves, torso upright, yet knees bent, arms crossed, leggings kicking outward, ever outward.

I'll miss you all.

Robert Amsterdam: Russia Huffs and Puffs as the House Comes Down

2009-08-12T18:11:04Z

It really is impressive the level of tolerance we've built up when it comes to Russia's confrontational antics. Take for example the move in early August to deploy two Akula II-class nuclear attack submarines off the East Coast of the United States. The Pentagon quickly discarded any potential threat from the stunt, which was only slightly more diplomatic than the response to the resumption of bomber patrols: "If Russia feels as though they want to take some of these old aircraft out of mothballs and get them flying again, that's their decision," a State Department rep quipped back in 2007.

It's the same story with the Europeans. At the end of the G8 Summit, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev resurrected his threat to place Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad enclave, shortly followed by Ukrainian police stopping a Russian military convoy hauling missiles around Sevastopol streets. What can they do but shrug before this kind of behavior? Back in 2008 the Polish Defense Minister politely pointed out how often these threats come from Moscow: "Of course we don't like it when the Russian president or Russian generals threaten us with nuclear annihilation. It is not a friendly thing to do, and we have asked them to do it no more than once a month."

Meanwhile, inside Russia, a type of bloody anarchy is beginning to reign. On July 15th, the award winning human rights journalist and advocate Natalia Estemirova was brutally kidnapped, shot, and dumped by a roadside outside of Chechnya. Not even a month later, the husband and wife human rights workers Zarema Sadulayeva and Alik Djabrailov were found murdered, stuffed into the trunk of their car. This week, Construction Minister of Ingushetia Ruslan Amerkhanov was shot dead in his office. At some unknown date, human rights worker Andrei Kulagin was also murdered -- his body discovered later on at the bottom of a quarry. That's all just from the summer so far.

So the question is why Russia bothers to go through the motions -- sending Soviet era submarines of a rapidly degrading naval fleet, flying bombers which belong in a museum, or otherwise huffing and puffing in anger with all their aging military toys? They know that we know that actual military capabilities do match the hostility of the rhetoric, and they can predict our response. With these growing problems at home, how does the muscle flexing serve Russian interests?

Among the competing theories to explain this conduct, I find that deflection is the most convincing. By creating manageable confrontations, especially with Europe, the United States, and the former Soviet states, the Kremlin is attempting to govern outwardly, diminishing pressures for greater accountability in their domestic shortcomings, and helping to stir up nationalism and support for the regime. The impunity of murder in Chechnya is out of their control and beyond the limits of their political will, the embarrassing failure of the Bulava missile, the prize military technology of the New Russia, is unacceptable to the brass, and the poor management of the economy is becoming widely palpable among citizens.

When Medvedev launched a sharp personal attack against the unpopular Ukranian president Viktor Yushchenko, perhaps we are less likely to pay attention to the fact that the economy shrank by 10.9% in the second quarter, that the state is running a budget deficit of 9.4% of GDP this year, or that both the IMF and World Bank are raising red flags. As the Duma prepares to pass an ominous new legislative bill which will give the President the authority to deploy Russian troops abroad to defend interests from third party states, that's just one less headline reporting on the rumors of a 30-40% devaluation of the ruble. When Russia signs deals to send more tanks to Venezuela, and small arms for a government now strongly linked to FARC terrorists, we can safely ignore how their ten-year long campaign to join the World Trade Organization was scuppered by an ill-advised customs union stunt.

Whatever tensions are available to stoke, Russia may see an advantage in reinforcing their own portrayal as a besieged fortress, drawing attention away from the rule of law fiasco that is the second trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, or the official grand corruption highlight by the William Browder/Hermitage lawsuit alleging a $250 million fraud with participation from the Interior Ministry (disclosure: I am a member of the Khodorkovsky defense team).

One of the most frequently quoted lines from Joe Biden's candid interview with the Wall Street Journal was that the Russian leadership finds itself "in a situation where the world is changing before them and they're clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable." That's exactly what we can see behind the submarines, the verbal attack on the Ukraine, and the guns for FARC, the Abkhazians, and anyone else who wants them. The nature of the Putinist authoritarian model is not order and stability, but anarchy and unpredictability. The enormous level of corruption and business participation by government officials has blurred the line between national interests and personal bank accounts, with policy-making rationality as the first victim.

Resorting to the old Cold War script presents an artificial but familiar political dynamic within which the panicked leadership is comfortable working. As more blood is spilt in Chechnya, we can expect more and more chest thumping and aggression. Unfortunately for the siloviki, however, this elaborate performance of deflection and misdirection is quickly becoming unsustainable and less believable. Let's just wait and see what comes next.

Russia To Reinforce Military Bases In Abkhazia, Says Putin

2009-08-12T08:37:24Z

Russia is to spend almost $500m (£300m) next year reinforcing its military bases in Georgia's breakaway region of Abkhazia, the prime minister says.

Eric Ehrmann: Drug Wars: Brazil's Amazon The New Rio Grande

2009-08-08T16:02:43Z

Presidents Lula of Brazil and Bachelet of Chile have voiced concern that Washington's push for more bases in Colombia will drive armed conflict deeper into the rain forest. But global demand makes the drug trade too big to fail, credit markets are drained and narcodollars are the last mountain of wealth the United States and Russia can battle over to shape the world economic order. The roundup to corral drugs and cash moving over Brazil's rain forest is the perfect alibi for a couple of superpowers looking for defense driven economic growth to remain in the divide and conquer business in Latin America.

US president Barack Obama just told the world he reset Washington's relationship with the Kremlin. But Obama's sit down with prime minister Vladimir Putin saw him come away with little relating directly to Latin America. And the drive-by from two Russian nuclear attack subs off the US coast a few days ago shows that Obama's latest attempt to make the world forget the past didn't get by the former KGB boss.

Moscow has a new base of operations on the South American continent thanks to Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez, who is spending more on Russian military hardware than the US gives Colombia. Russian armed FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) units based in Venezuela and anti-Castro mercenaries who support Colombian leader Alvaro Uribe conduct cross-border operations to disrupt drugs and weapons shipments that are shooting the Monroe Doctrine full of holes.

In spite of a smooth, Harvard-turned image that matches up with what the Council on Foreign Relations likes to see in a Latin anti-drug crusader, Uribe's connections to the highest levels of Colombian drug business are deep and well known to the Defense Intelligence Agency, among others.

Just as the FBI has used organized crime figures like Whitey Bulger to track the underworld Venezuela's Chavez keeps his lines open to the drug business because it strengthens his position in the oil business. Hugo's pipelines don't get blown up by narco guerrillas as often as Uribe's do next door in Colombia. He even got high marks from Interpol in June when he deported Italian drug kingpin Salvatore Miceli. Interpol would be even happier if Chavez put the top Russian and Cuban drug traffickers on a plane home.

Brazil's public security directorate follows FARC and does not now view the organization as a threat. Itamaraty, the foreign ministry, maintains a relatively non-judgmental policy toward FARC, Iran and other revolutionary movements to avoid the more costly political risks of isolating them. This strategy leaves an opening for crunch time dialogue under conditions of mutual respect. And foreign minister Celso Amorim, a career diplomat who served other presidents, has a reputation for conducting balanced statecraft. This is one reason Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman recently told Lula he thinks Brazil is well qualified to handle negotiations in the Middle East.

But prospects that the Obama administration is pushing the drug war beyond US bases in Colombia toward a globalist quasi-nation in the Amazon are real and don't bode well for Brazil as it moves into a presidential election year. For this, Brazil can thank former US president Bill Clinton, who used his social network to globalize a Brazilian radar project originally developed to monitor unauthorized logging and cross border spraying of environmentally dangerous defoliants.

Known by the acronym SIVAM, the Amazon surveillance project has developed into a multi billion dollar drug war boondoggle funded by Washington. The project can track contraband shipments and force them and their proceeds into politically reliable channels but it does nothing to reduce demand for product, which Mexico's president Calderon says team Obama isn't doing a very good job of.

Mission creep associated with the big project could become an issue in Brazil's presidential vote and also places the armed forces in the difficult position of reconciling national sovereignty with Obama's new globalist policy objectives. SIVAM features major US defense contractors, military advisers and other international subcontractors ostensibly paid to assist Brazil in tracking aircraft and ground action suspected of carrying drugs, money and armaments.

Deployment of the project started before Lula took office and Brazil's federal police presented wiretap evidence indicating improper activity among government officials to steer the deal the way then US president Clinton wanted it to go. This radar system, which runs across Brazil's 2,000 mile northern tier, is a lot bigger than the one that operated at the Iran-Contra drug drop in Mena, Arkansas during Clinton's tenure as governor.

Jeffrey Garten, a former US army special forces officer in Thailand who served as a policy planner for Henry Kissinger and subsequently as a top commerce department official, has confirmed Clinton's role in the radar deal to the New York Times.

Brazilian public security officials will acknowledge that while the United States is by far the top consumer of illegal drugs moving from south to north, Brazil's drug use and street crime violence can be directly linked to American cultural exports. Gang culture, violent hip hop lyrics and music videos that pass themselves off as artistic expression provide the impetus for kids in Brazil's favelas to join American style gangs, sell drugs the way they see them sold on American TV, buy guns, and kill innocent citizens.

While Lula and Obama wear their soft power smiles for globalist photo ops, diplomacy between the two nations has dropped down to the von Clausewitz definition of war by other means. Washington is not accustomed to having an ascending economic power with a different culture and radically different approach to sustainable energy operating in the Americas. The Argentina where Aristotle Onassis made his fortune was running neck and neck with the United States until 1929 when it got knocked out of the game by the Wall Street Crash. And China is now Brazil's top trade partner, a spot Washington held since Herbert Hoover was in the White House.

Secretary of state Hillary Clinton, who was made a Wal-Mart board member for life by founder Sam Walton, warned Brazil of Washington's concern over the growing trade relationship with China. Her statement, politically incorrect from the globalist perspective, is unlikely to cause a dip in Chinese exports to Wal-Mart Brasil, which operates over 300 stores.

Brazil's growing strategic alliance with France, as outlined by leaders of both nations on HuffPo, can help offset Washington's efforts to make the Amazon a quasi-nation in the world economic order. The last thing president Lula and Brazilian democracy need is the United States on its northern border using the drug war to interfere in internal politics like it has done in the past with Mexico. If that happens, protecting Brazil's sovereignty and national identity are the first things politicians and military men will think about if called on to approve a constitutional amendment that would enable Lula to run for a third term.

Vladimir Putin Is Determined To Kill Me, Says Georgian President

2009-08-08T15:21:54Z

Georgia's pro-Western president said yesterday that Vladimir Putin remained determined to kill him as part of his ambition to restore Russia's former Soviet empire.

Saakashvili: Putin Still Determined To Kill Me

2009-08-07T16:37:49Z

Georgia's pro-Western President said yesterday that Vladimir Putin remained determined to kill him as part of ambitions to restore Russia's former Soviet empire.

Putin's Outdoor Adventure Vacation (PHOTOS, POLL)

2009-08-04T17:04:10Z

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has been photographed engaging in an array of outdoor adventure activities in Southern Siberia, sometimes only partially clothed. The Telegraph suggests that perhaps this was more than a simple vacation, but a planned photo shoot aimed at convincing Russians that their former president is as manly as ever.

Mr Putin's day of activities were described as a "holiday" by state media but was clearly aimed at reinforcing his tough-guy image that plays so well at home.

Check out this slideshow of Putin's outdoor adventures and vote on which photo is your favorite.

Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter!

Biden "Jesus Christ" Called "Hate Speech" By Conservative

2009-08-03T11:23:13Z

Mark Tapscott, the editorial page editor of the conservative Washington Examiner, has nothing but fire and brimstone for Joe Biden.

In an op-ed last week, Tapscott expressed outraged over the vice president's use of the phrase "Jesus Christ" in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

Speaking about Iran's nuclear program, Biden had said, "I can see Putin sitting in Moscow saying, 'Jesus Christ, Iran gets the nuclear weapon, who goes first?' Moscow, not Washington."

The language may seem innocuous enough to a layman. But to Tapscott, the blasphemy comes across loud and clear. The public silence in the face of this "hate speech," Tapscott claims, has revealed a glaring double-standard:

"Either way, had Biden used the name Mohammed in this manner, Muslims would be crying foul. Quite possibly rioting in the streets, to boot. And if the vice president had used "gay" or "Black" as swear words, folks would be rightfully angry about that, too.

Hate speech is hate speech, whether it is aimed at Christians, Muslims, Gays, or African-Americans."

The writer is incredulous over the lack of outrage from religious leaders. (He has managed to stir up some anger on conservative blogs.)

"So where is the outrage about Biden's hate speech against Christians? We've not heard a peep of protest from the Southern Baptist Convention. Nothing from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Nothing from the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. Nothing from the United Methodist Church."

Certainly it cannot be that these organizations have better things to do than go after Biden for using a phrase that Tapscott himself admits to using ("Having myself uttered such words on too many occasions..." ). According to Tapscott, the reason for the religious authorities' silence is more nefarious.

"Biden's uncorrected cursing is indicative of the slow strangling by the unrelenting forces of political correctness of the religious tolerance that is Christianity's greatest gift to America.

Right.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

William Bradley: Is Obama Getting Overexposed?

2009-07-28T14:51:56Z

President Barack Obama's latest prime time press conference drew his smallest audience yet.

Is President Barack Obama getting overexposed? As talented a communicator as he is, it seems he's in danger of just that.

In part because he is such a talented speaker. He's the big gun that Team Obama keeps firing when it's in harm's way. Which it almost always is, having inherited the biggest economic and financial crisis since the Great Depression, a growing environmental crisis, and geopolitical crises around the globe. Not to mention a hyper-partisan political environment and a semi-functional media culture.

The question takes on some urgency for Obama with his "hurry up offense" coming up short on universal health care.

With Obama having dipped in the polls, though still very healthy in the mid-50s in job approval despite multiple crises, it's a good moment to rethink one's drink, so to speak.

There's no question that, in this fragmented media culture marked by an acute attention deficit disorder, Obama is the prime driver of news. But that doesn't mean he has to do it himself.

Obama didn't use surrogates very well in his Democratic primary campaign last year, even though he had some good ones. Too often, it was him against the world of his opponents and critical media. Things have improved since then, but not that markedly.

Last Wednesday night, we witnessed yet another prime time Obama press conference, this one apparently his least watched. Obama has already done more prime time press conferences than George W. Bush did during eight years of his presidency.

Without any real news to announce and discuss, the event turned into a health care policy wonkfest and, notably, an excursion into racial politics when Obama gave a politically inartful reply to a question about one of the latest media crazes, the arrest of a black Harvard professor trying to get into his own home. It was the sort of mistake -- I'm calling it a political mistake, not arguing Obama was wrong on the merits -- you wouldn't expect the usually carefully spoken president to make

Is Obama fatigued? That would certainly account for it.

The fact is that he seemed tired at his big Moscow and G-8 summits earlier this month. His major address in Moscow was one of his less compelling performances. Of course, that may have had something to do with the fact that Vladimir Putin made him late by keeping him long at their meeting at Putin's dacha outside Moscow. It may also have have something to do with the fact that Obamamania -- which according to polling, not to mention crowd reactions, stretches around the globe -- doesn't really exist in Russia. But Obama looked tired in the footage and according to attendees, and made a few unusual errors in pronunciation.

Fatigue could certainly account for his political mistake at the prime time presser with regard to the Gates controversy. It might also account for the wonkish cast to Obama's performance, which was quite "down in the weeds," as the saying goes, with respect to health care policy. The tireder he gets, the more professorial he seems.

Obama talked about health care again in his latest weekend video/radio address.

In many respects, health care is inherently a MEGO issue. By which I mean, once one delves into the particulars of the policy, "my eyes glaze over." Which doesn't reduce the importance of the issue. But does detract from its drama. There is a very dramatic proposal on health care that people can readily understand. Nationalize it. But nationalizing health care isn't politically viable in this system, as we are seeing with the struggle for Senate Democratic support for the so-called public option.

While Obama has used major surrogates to good effect on foreign policy -- on which he gets high ratings -- they've been pretty lacking on domestic policy.

In the campaign days, all the way back in, you know, 2008, Obama was frequently standing alone being pummeled by the Clintons and their allies and elements of the media. When all the while, Obama actually had more impressive endorsers.

Senator Ted Kennedy was a very effective surrogate for Obama in last year's campaign until illness struck.

For a time, Senator Ted Kennedy was a highly effective counterweight, notably to former President Bill Clinton. But then Kennedy disappeared from the campaign trail, for reasons we now understand all too well.

This went on even in the general election, when Obama had all the Democratic Party, including the Clintons, at his disposal.

One problem for Obama is a lack of strong major surrogates on domestic policy.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is not a very effective spokesman. White House Economic Policy Council head Larry Summers is not a very appealing spokesman. Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius is still very low-profile, despite having been an impressive governor of Kansas. Joe Biden is the vice president, frequently an effective surrogate on foreign policy, but cast in the master media narrative as a gaffe-machine on domestic affairs.

Obama's "hurry up offense" is coming up short on universal health care.

Now Obama's "hurry up offense" approach is coming up short on universal health care. He won't get a bill before the August congressional recess, which raises the question of how best for him to proceed.

Especially at a time when most Americans are still most concerned with the economy. Now, the economy appears to be coming around in a number of ways. Intel, the leading maker of microprocessors, has sharply increasing sales. Apple sales of its higher-end personal computers, smartphones, and music players reported increasing sales and profits, defying recessionary predictions about the company.

The stock market has gone up, taking away the wingnut trope about "the Obama market." Of course, the financial sector should be in better shape, for the vast sums of public money thrown at it.

Kansas Governor-turned-US Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has had a very low profile.

Unemployment continues to be a lagging indicator of any economic recovery. However, it has usually been a lagging indicator of recovery. Which reminds that the big economic stimulus package probably should have been more front-loaded, with more infrastructure spending.

Which in turn points up the problem of deferring to congressional barons in the development of programs, as legislators by definition have more parochial concerns than executives.

That's been a problem with health care, as well, as congressional Democrats have been wrangling with one another various iterations of universal health care, a situation which allows the lobbyists to work their dark arts in the relative shade free from much publicity.

Obama has a lot to think about as he regroups his forces for a renewed push on health care, and on the rest of his agenda.

You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.

Robert Amsterdam: Are Russia's Arms Deals to Venezuela Destablizing Central America?

2009-07-28T05:57:22Z

Yesterday afternoon, Russia's RIA Novosti Spanish wire service reported on the arrival of the Deputy Prime Minister and Rosneft Chairman Igor Sechin to Caracas, Venezuela. The reason for the trip of Russia's energy czar (and leader of the "siloviki" network of former KGB officers), according to the Kremlin news outlet, was to prepare for Hugo Chávez's upcoming visit to Moscow and a high-level inter-governmental commission to be held in St. Petersburg.

By the end of the day, Sechin had already inked many deals, conveniently for himself and for Russia, with the Venezuelan government -- Bloomberg reports that Russia and Venezuela signed wide-ranging cooperation accords on energy, military, and agricultural cooperation, including the formation of a joint venture between PDVSA-Services and Gazprom's Latin America division. What does Sechin personally get out of the trip? He took a trip with his PDVSA counterpart Rafael Ramirez out to the Orinoco Belt to see an oil field which was once owned by U.S. firm ConocoPhillips before expropriation, announcing plans to unveil another joint venture to develop it with with Rosneft in September.

Joint ventures and big-sounding cooperation agreements are a familiar sight to observers of Russia-Venezuela relations, and the two countries have even formed a $4 billion development bank. But other than arms purchases, the trade volume hasn't yet caught up. Venezuela still exports some 60% of its oil to the United States, comprising 11% of U.S. supply. The U.S. is by far their largest trade partner, and Russia's volumes don't even yet compete with China's business with Venezuela.

The reason for all this fuss, of course, is that the relationship is highly political. For the Russians, there is a clear desire to poke Washington in the eye after Vice President Joseph Biden's visit to the Ukraine and Georgia -- Sechin seems dead-set on proving Hillary Clinton right that no spheres of influence exist. More than just the immense enjoyment that Chávez must feel in passing an oil field taken directly from an American company into the hands of a Russian company, there is also a strong and growing military dimension to the relationship to the tune of $4.4 billion. A Swedish think tank estimates a 900% growth in arms purchases in the last five-year period, making Venezuela the #1 buyer of Russian arms in the world.

Hugo Chávez should be honored to have such a high ranking official from the Kremlin to help him "prepare" for his next visit to Moscow -- Sechin is estimated by many Kremlinologists to have much more clout, and many more billions, than President Dmitry Medvedev himself. Sechin is the main figure running Russia's Latin America policy, as he is rumored to be fluent in both Spanish and Portuguese from his KGB days in Africa.

Controversy seems to follow the man wherever he goes. Many point to him as being the main conspirator and beneficiary behind the Kremlin's takeover of the Yukos oil company - a multi-billion dollar daylight robbery. The Rosneft chairman has also come under fire for what many believe to be a non-sensical deal with the Chinese, passing them control of the future of Russian oil. The economist Konstantin Sonin has written that "Sechin's contract with China might go down in history like the notorious privatization auctions of the early 1990s."

The timing of his visit -- along with the high tensions over Honduras following the coup -- raises some concerns over the uptick in military hardware transfers between Moscow and Caracas. The Venezuelan President recently made several comments about doubling his orders of T-90 battle tanks from Russia. The Kremlin recently sent the battleship Peter the Great to carry out war games with Venezuela in the Caribbean. Venezuela is the only country in Latin America with a license to manufacture their own Kalashnikovs, a fact which is very worrying to the Colombian government when so many of these small arms seem to go missing. A Colombian newspaper also ran a report this month about a Venezuelan contact attempting to sell 20 Russian-made surface-to-air missiles on the black market.

What the United States may be worried about with this visit is Russia's potential acquiescence to Chávez's apparent plan to disrupt the attempts to broker a deal on behalf of former Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. Under instructions from Chávez, Zelaya has ignored all advice from Arias, and made many high risk stunts, including crossing over the border for a few minutes amid teeming crowds this past weekend (Christopher Sabatini from the Council of the Americas describes Zelaya's actions as "tragic silliness"). Many observers believe that Chávez and Zelaya "need more dead Hondurans" to produce the outcome they are looking for.

There can be no doubt of two facts: this level of arms purchases by Chávez defeats the narrative that he is about protecting the interests of the poor and underprivileged of Venezuela, and secondly, there are individuals seeking improper personal enrichment through their powers of office. The grotesque level of corruption in both Russia and Venezuela should stimulate the discussion as to whether the predatory nature of both states constitutes not only an international crime, but as well a breach of fundamental human rights for which there may indeed be remedies under international law.

A version of this article was published on www.robertamsterdam.com.