Showing posts with label Putin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Putin. Show all posts

Sep 8, 2013

Putin: lonely, scared and confused

Talk to real master of situation, not his shadow


Before the G-20 Summit Putin assured the world in the official interview  that he has not ruled out backing a U.S.-led military operation in Syria if the Kremlin gets concrete proof than an alleged chemical attack on civilians was committed by Bashar Assad’s regime. The sincerity of Putin’s intention was obvious – he bases all his prestige on the Soviet Victory in the WWII over atrocious regime of Hitler, but now he finds himself and Russia on the side of the “Syrian Hitler”, using gas against his own people.  Putin understands that despite his huge propaganda efforts, he will not be able to manipulate the public opinion for long. It seems suddenly he started to realize that this time he risks remaining on the wrong side of history.
For the West the Kremlins condition is quite easy to satisfy, as there are enough proofs that only the Assad forces could conduct the chemical attack.  Next day – one day before the Summit - Putin unexpectedly produced a U-turn, publicly called John Kerry a “liar” using an obvious manipulation.  Putin’s sudden change of heart is the main intrigue of the G-20 Summit and deserves some attention.
Failed Mega Deal
What happened in between? Day before the Summit Putin had a pompous meeting with the Chinese leader where Russia expected to sign a mega-deal for gas supply to China.  Then top Chinese official stated that any military actions in Middle East would lead to the oil prices growth and because of this the China opposes to the strike.  However, much advertised  “mega-deal”, expected by Russia, has failed as Chinese continue to insist on a half-price of the usual price Russia gets in Europe.
Moreover, a couple days earlier China signed a mega-deal with gas rich Turkmenistan, more than doubling the gas exports to China. Day after the Summit China struck a $30 billion deal with Kazakhstan including purchase of the $5 billion stake in the giant Kashagan oilfield.  
Therefore, China is not in hurry and can quietly wait, when Russia get totally isolated by the West and be ready for a slow and quiet technical takeover by China. China doesn’t want to invest in Russia, but agrees to finance some big industrial project as the Far East with a precondition that this enterprises will be in its ownership and workers will be only from China. As Russian economy is sinking despite the high oil and gas prices Putin a bit earlier or later will have to accept the Chinese proposition. This would mean a “forever concession” by China of the Russia’s Far East.
Russia’s Political Bluffing
This makes Russia extremely nervous and dependent on China. It gradually increases its influence in the region, which Russia considers its “legitimate sphere of interests” and leaves Russia out in the cold.  However, Russia does not dare to complain.  Instead, it pretends having a very special relation and a strong alliance with China as opposing to the failing relation with the West. 
China calls Russia a “major country” and lets it fight its revisionist fights with the West, but does not view Russia as an equal partner.  On the Chinese President visit’s  web page  there are mostly  pictures of  Chinese President with American President Obama, but there is no any picture with Russian President Putin.  This shows where the real China’s priorities are.  
Putin’s dependence on China explains Putin’s U-turn.  Trying hard to please Chinese President, he found not exactly elegant way to reverse his recent declaration on possible joining the international effort against Bashar Assad by calling John Kerry a “liar” and returned to his usual slogans about Syria.
Upgrading Role for China
Putin’s miserable position, which he masks with the massive PR efforts, promoting his image and ideas at the West, makes him useless as a negotiator on Syria.  The real master of the situation is China. If the leader of this country really thinks that the oil price growth is the only objection to the common action in Syria the negotiations should be conducted with him, not with the politically impotent Putin.  In this case, Chinese and the Western position on Syria coincide. Russia on the contrary is objectively interested in maintaining the civil war in Syria as a precondition for a high oil price, on which Russian economy depends.
The U.S. should convince China that the sooner the situation in Syria is resolved the sooner the oil prices would go down.  This could become a first international action, where China can show its political maturity and responsibility for the World. China could like this  as it is follows already the U.S. example offering assistance to the different countries. Cash rich China can show a real leadership helping freed from the Assad’s regime Syria after the conflict is over.

Sep 10, 2012

From the European ‘Party of Discontents’ to the Authoritarian ‘Axis of Resistance' to the West?

By Irina Severin | 20.08.12

Will Merkel's Visit to Moldova Make a Difference?


Why Angela Merkel, the most influential European politician, in the midst of the EU financial crisis decided to visit Moldova - Europe's poorest and otherwise insignificant country? Why bother?

A glance at the map shows that Moldova including its breakaway region Transnistria (self-proclaimed in 1990-s with the Russian Army support) is sandwiched between two countries, problematic for the EU:  Ukraine with the "Tymoshenko case" and Romania with the 'Basescu case'. Both countries Romania as a member of the EU and Ukraine,   proclaiming the European aspirations demonstrate clear potential for sliding into authoritarianism. 

In both cases, there are indications of Russian involvement in domestic political processes. In the Romanian case, Russia was traced as encouraging the Ponta-Antonescu 'coup' against Basescu. In Ukraine, Russia's growing meddling limits Ukrainian potential for democratization.

The economic pressure is another instrument of influence. In both cases,  gas prices being political are used for control of the political and economic situation in the countries.

Transnistria, existing mostly for justification of the Russian military presence in the region, is a direct threat to security in the Europe, not a "stabilizing factor" as Russia pretends.  Russia involvement wouldn't be a threat if Moscow were moving to rapprochement with the EU modernizing its political and economic system. Germany is interested in cooperation with Russia, but both the EU and Germany need to see that Russia is open for the European values as a precondition for closer interaction and for being guaranty for stability.
In 2009 Angela Merkel offered closer cooperation to Medvedev in exchange to Russia constructive role in the Transnistrian frozen conflict settlement. Russia didn't advance in this direction preferring to impose its will maintaining its military presence on the border with the EU. Russia is quite pessimistic about the EU future considering it a temporary experiment and recalling that about 50 years ago European countries were each other’s worst enemy.
Moscow thinks that the EU dissolution would rise Russia to a great power status. Though, Russia's plans are much more ambitious. Russia considers its  Eurasian Union an alternative to the EU and doesn't limit it with the former USSR borders as some used to think. 

As Fyodor Lukyanov mentions in his article Uncertain World: Does Europe Have Any Alternative? Moscow doesn't exclude that it can relapse in what it names 'big Balkan game’ and even ‘big Orthodox game’ (including Greece and Serbia, for instance)."
From the European 'Party of Discontents'…
Meantime Russia tries to get control over the EU's decision-making without abiding by the European principles, but converting the EU countries to its own political 'matrix'. Technically this is achievable by encouraging the EU countries' politicians to break the EU political standards and oppose to the EU requirements. 

Now this is happening in Romania with Ponta government.  He came to power by organizing protests against President Basescu accusing him in complying with the tight the EU and IMF requirements.  Ponta's actions are tempered for now by coming parliamentary elections. Romanians are staunchly pro-European, and any anti-European rhetoric would obstruct their chances to win elections. 

Earlier Greek Syriza incited long-term protests against the EU and IMF, what put on the brink of collapse not only Greece but the EU and Eurozone as well. 

Opposing to the EU and the IMF from left or right by default puts any country into the Russian sphere of influence and at Russia's mercy.  Lukyanov names this opposition to the EU "the growing "party of discontents": "Both ideological extremes are brought together by the new rhetoric calling on the government to defend the public against the social ills of globalization". Further, he explains:
The difference between the ‘party of recovery’(consisting of Conservatives, Christian Democrats, Liberals and Social Democrats) versus the 'party of discontents' lies in their ability to run the state. The former has a clear idea of what should be done and how, but finds it increasingly difficult to garner public support, while its opponent can channel public sentiment but lacks a strategy of its own. The discontents are chanting slogans without assuming any responsibility. 
Ideological developments are more complicated. One EU country, Hungary, is already essentially turning its back on European values. It is increasingly leaning towards a more conservative and nationalist policy. 
On another side of Moldova - in Ukraine Russia recently managed to considerably advance its interests in exchange for a promise of lower gas prices. The "Language law" offers status of the regional language to the Russian language making the Ukrainian language redundant in more than half of Ukraine. 

Now Russian propagandists promote as the next step the idea of partition of Ukraine on the Ukrainian-speaking West and predominantly Russian-speaking rest of the country, where the Ukrainian language will be excluded, and the Ukrainian speakers will become the unprotected minority. 


The "Language law" has radicalized and polarized political situation in Ukraine,  making the country unstable before the elections. Not to mention here the incarceration of the opposition leaders, what is the anathema for the EU, but an apparent gain for Russia.
On this background,  Moldova despite all odds following democratic principles and adopting European values is looking like a rare case of success, which can become a showcase for others. The country doesn't require massive investments and is genuinely European. 
At the same time, lack of 'clear European prospective' for Moldova makes it a subject of the Russian pressure. One of the instruments is artificially created fringe movements: pro-Russian, invoking reunification with Russia and 'anti-Russian', promoting reunification with Romania. 

Both extremes exploit and boost nationalistic moods and raise the grade of polarization of the society. Recent March, organized by a fringe group supporting Unification with Romania, led to staged clashes with the "Patriots of Moldova", another fringe group, promoting the idea of unification with Russia. Naturally, such performances don't encourage the Transnistrian conflict resolution. Quite the opposite - they offer a justification for the existence of Russia's  military outpost on the Dniester. 
…To the Authoritarian 'Axis of Resistance' to the West
Merkel's encouragement of Moldova's European aspirations can strengthen Moldova as a stability factor in the region as well as a positive example for the neighboring countries. Otherwise, Moldova as small as it is can trigger a massive destabilization,  which can reach as far as the Balkans and Greece. Moldova’s territorial integrity and sovereignty is a key for the European security and stability.
If not supported now Moldova together with the EU's "party of discontents" one day can become a part of the authoritarian 'Axis of resistance' to the West, which Putin is working hard to create after his return to the presidency. 

The Authoritarian Axis became apparent due to the Syria case. Apparently, it includes Russia, Syria, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela. The situation starts to resemble the "Cold War" bi-polar world order when two sides were fighting for promoting their political models to expand their influence. 

Putin managed to replace the communism with the ideology of the Resistance to the West but has nothing to offer as an alternative political or economic model. Exactly as the European  "party of discontent", ‘ "detected"  by Lukyanov,  Moscow knows how to "channel public sentiment" and "to sow the seeds of discontent’ around the world, but doesn't know what to do next. Being underdeveloped and ineffective Russia could only lead the world to the chaos. 
For many years the reply of the West to Russia's growing assertion abroad was 'we don't fight with Russia'. But the problem is that Russia is fighting the West. And the West should at least acknowledge this. And if not fighting back at least to secure democratic values and principles in the world with some meaningful steps. Supporting Moldova today Merkel invests in stability and security in the Europe, what can be not achievable tomorrow.
The next day after Angela Merkel's announcement about her coming to Moldova Prime Minister Vlad Filat has got an invitation from  Moscow to meet Vladimir Putin after Merkel's visit. Will Moldova become the next target of promises of lower gas prices in exchange for the anti-Western  'discontent moves'?

Jun 8, 2012

Russia eXaminer: Russia and China - Partnership of "Rabbit and Boa"

Russia eXaminer

Russia-China Anti-Western Friendship Leads to Global Chaos and Russia Takeover

By Irina Severin | 07.06.2012
Putin's three-day visit to China after his demonstrative refusal to participate in the Summit of the developed countries in the United States says that he does have something to discuss with the Chinese leadership. Moreover this is an opportunity to demonstrate to the West that Putin has an alternative. There is no doubt that he feels more comfortable there where nobody recalls of human rights and democracy, what Putin calls unnecessary "ideologization" in relations with the West.

May 26, 2012

Fight for Ukraine is not over

By Irina Severin | 05.25.2012
Merkel seeks Tymoshenko's  treatment In Germany. Tymoshenko's safety in Ukraine can not be guaranteed despite the extra security measures employed

Moderate expectations

A shift in the EU relation to Ukraine from threatening with boycott  to cooperation hopefully will give its fruits. Azarov's invitation for the EU lawyers to take part in Tymoshenko trial gives possibility to resolve the problem with Tymoshenko imprisonment without creating an impression that Yanukovych gave up to the pressure, but he does this in the context of approximation of the Ukrainian judiciary system  to the EU standards. 
The problem for the EU is that Yanukovych never gives up to the pressure - be it from Moscow or from Brussels. An opposite - if the pressure is applied he will act against his own interests and the interests of the country protecting first of all his self-esteem. Even if black and white approach is understandable at the parliamentary level, as politicians care more about the impression they create and reelection and not always are able to get to the the essence of the problem, at the executive and diplomatic level should be employed more sophisticated approach.
It seems that a search for the mutual acceptable solution was exactly the reason of the Ukrainian  prime-minister invitation for the European lawyers to take part in the Tymoshenko trial as well as the proposition that they can study all related to the case documents in order to evaluate them from the European point of view.  

Oct 4, 2011

Russian Reality-Check

David J. Kramer and Christopher Walker: Russian Reality-Check - WSJ.com

Putin's return to the presidency should dispel any remaining delusions about the Medvedev era

By DAVID J. KRAMER AND CHRISTOPHER WALKER

The prevailing wisdom is that Vladimir Putin's return to the Russian presidency is bad news. That may be, but there is also reason to welcome his not-so-surprising Kremlin homecoming: It will remove the fiction of Russian reform and modernization that the presidency of Dmitry Medvedev represented. This in turn should allow U.S. and European Union policy makers to see the country as it is, rather than as they would prefer to imagine it.

Aug 8, 2011

Vladimir Putin: Russia's "real life action man'

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | Express Yourself :: Vladimir Putin: Russia's "real life action man"

VLADIMIR PUTIN: RUSSIA'S REAL LIFE ACTION MAN

Story Image

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin rides a horse during his vacation outside the town of Kyzyl
Monday August 8,2011

By Anna Pukas


















DRESSED in killer heels and figure-hugging suit, the shapely blonde strides through central Moscow, speaking into an iPhone.

Rather than talking business, she is in fact arranging to meet up with two friends who are chilling out on sun loungers at what looks like a trendy private club.

This is what Modern Russia looks like: confident, self-assured and savvy, they know what they want.

Aug 2, 2011

Putin says U.S. is parasite on global economy | Reuters

Putin says U.S. is parasite on global economy | Reuters

Putin says U.S. is "parasite" on global economy

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin answers questions from the audience during his visit to the summer camp of the pro-Kremlin youth group ''Nashi'' at lake Seliger, some 400km (248miles) north of Moscow, August 1, 2011. REUTERS/Mikhail Metzel/Pool
LAKE SELIGER, Russia | Mon Aug 1, 2011 5:45pm EDT
(Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin accused the United States Monday of living beyond its means "like a parasite" on the global economy and said dollar dominance was a threat to the financial markets.

Mar 22, 2011

Vladimir Putin: International knee-capper | FP Passport

Vladimir Putin: International knee-capper | FP Passport
The Russian Prime Minister has made global headlines again this week (not by frolicking with a snow leopard, though he did that too) with some highly-charged comments about the international intervention in Libya:
"The resolution is defective and flawed," said Russia's Putin, whose country did not use its power to veto the resolution at the United Nations. "It allows everything. It resembles medieval calls for crusades," Putin added.

Jan 7, 2011

US- NATO Missile Deployments directed against Russia: Putin Prepares For War

US- NATO Missile Deployments directed against Russia: Putin Prepares For War
Vladimir Putin is the most popular leader in the world today. His personal approval ratings are in the stratosphere, usually well-above 80 percent. He is admired for his quiet, confident manner and for having restored Russia to its former greatness following the chaotic breakup of the Soviet Union. The Russian people love Putin. Parents name their children after him, vodka and caviar producers use his name to boost sales, and his face appears on the tee-shirts of students and young people. It's unthinkable that he would step down after his term as prime minister is over a year from today. The Russian people want him to stay on and run for a third term as president, and that's probably what he'll do.

Dec 12, 2010

В. Путин сыграл "С чего начинается Родина" и спел песню

YouTube - В. Путин сыграл "С чего начинается Родина" и спел песню

It's website warfare over WikiLeaks

It's website warfare over WikiLeaks | The Post and Courier, Charleston SC - News, Sports, Entertainment: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"

It's website warfare over WikiLeaks

Cyberspace is battleground for supporters, attackers

BY RAPHAEL G. SATTER AND JILL LAWLESS
Associated Press
"Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, questioning the reliability of leaked U.S. cables referring to his nation as undemocratic and corrupt, said the fact that Assange is in custody shows that the West has its own problems with democracy.
"Why was Mr. Assange hidden in prison?" Putin said. "Is this democracy?"
LONDON -- Skirmishes raged across cyberspace between WikiLeaks supporters and the companies they accuse of trying to stifle the group, with websites on both sides of the battle line taken out of service or choked off by attacks.

Aug 15, 2010

Big Peace | Big Peace

Big Peace | Big Peace

Un-Reset Russia Enables Iran to ‘Go Nuclear’

News that Vladimir Putin’s regime will proceed to fueling Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor on August 21st is the strategic equivalent of a high-Richter-scale tectonic shift. It is likely to trigger the most far-reaching shockwaves with incalculable repercussions.
For starters, this Russian action offers the latest and most compelling evidence that there has been no real, two-way “reset” of US-Russian relations. Taken together with Russia’s providing advanced anti-aircraft systems, refined petroleum and political protection to Tehran, even the immediate rationale for U.S. appeasement of Moscow – i.e., the Kremlin’s help with the Iranian nuclear program – has not panned out.
In fact, all we have to show for this unilateral reset is systematic accommodation by the United States and business-as-usual by the Kremlin.

Jul 18, 2010

FOXNews.com - Putin Boasts Russia's New Fighter Jet Better Than U.S. Planes

FOXNews.com - Putin Boasts Russia's New Fighter Jet Better Than U.S. Planes

Putin Boasts Russia's New Fighter Jet Better Than U.S. Planes

Published June 18, 2010
MOSCOW -- Prime Minister Vladimir Putin climbed into the cockpit of Russia's newest fighter jet on Thursday and said it would trump a U.S.-built rival, the F-22 Raptor.
Putin watched a test flight of a "fifth-generation" stealth fighter, dubbed the T-50 and billed as Russia's first all-new warplane since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

May 9, 2010

Putin taking advantage of Merkel's fear of dogs

Profiles in Phobia | Foreign Policy

BY ANDREW SWIFT | MAY 4, 2010


As a child, Chancellor Merkel was bitten by a dog, instilling her deep fear of canines. Merkel's fear is well known, and perhaps worryingly for Germans has reportedly been used against her by foreign leaders. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, a master of psychological diplomacy, has repeatedly attempted to take advantage of Merkel's fear. In 2006, the then-president perplexed German diplomats by presenting the chancellor with a small dog as a gift and made a habit of having his black Labrador, Koni, sit in on their meetings. Putin's successor, Dmitry Medvedev, has put a stop to the practice.

May 2, 2010

UAobserver: Putin proposes merger of Gazprom and Naftogaz

UAobserver: Putin proposes merger of Gazprom and Naftogaz
ПУТІН ПРОПОНУЄ ОБ'ЄДНАТИ ГАЗПРОМ І НАФТОГАЗ | Українська правда
Friday, April 30, 2010, 16:54

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin proposed a joint venture in the gas field with Gazprom and Naftogaz.

Putin said that on Friday at a meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart Mykola Azarov was talking about integration in the nuclear field, but "we're ready for integration and in the gas sector. "I propose a merger of Gazprom and Naftogaz Ukraine", - said Putin.

In his turn, Gazprom chairman Alexei Miller said that Gazprom, Naftogaz of Ukraine and Ministry of Energy of Russia and Ukraine after the May holidays will discuss the unification of Gazprom and Naftogaz.

Apr 27, 2010

Putin and Medvedev - A Purely Platonic Power Couple - NYTimes.com

Putin and Medvedev - A Purely Platonic Power Couple - NYTimes.com
 By CLIFFORD J. LEVY Published: April 26, 2010
During a visit to Italy, Mr. Putin mocked a question from an Italian reporter who wanted him to explain the secrets to success in a “political marriage.” Mr. Putin has led Russia jointly with Mr. Medvedev for the past two years, after term limits prevented Mr. Putin from running for a third consecutive term as president.
Mr. Putin said the question had been phrased “in a very literary way.”
“Mr. Medvedev and I are people of a traditional orientation,” Mr. Putin said. “I can tell you this with complete certainty. As for marital unions, you have exaggerated a bit. But we are friends, friends for many years, I have already said this. And the way that we have arranged our work today — it seems to me, we can be proud of this.”
Mr. Putin was speaking at a news conference with Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, with whom he has long had a close (working) relationship.
When it was his turn to speak, Mr. Berlusconi added his own quip.
“I have experience in many areas: in urban planning, in publishing, in sports, in television, in public works,” Mr. Berlusconi said. “But I have not done so well with regards to marriage, so I will not begin to give advice.”
Mr. Berlusconi has had a stormy personal life, and he and his second wife are divorcing.
Mr. Medvedev was not part of the visit. But in an interview with Danish television that was released by the Kremlin on Monday, Mr. Medvedev acknowledged that he and Mr. Putin did not always agree on everything.
“Despite the similarities in our circumstances, we have had different experiences, and we may have different views on some of the nuances as to how our political system should develop,” Mr. Medvedev said.

Apr 23, 2010

Putin wins again - NYPOST.com

Putin wins again - NYPOST.com: "Putin wins again
Rebuilding imperial Russia

Last Updated: 7:41 AM, April 17, 2010

Posted: 12:55 AM, April 16, 2010

Jeez, this guy is good.

A few years back, I wrote that Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was the most impressive major leader on today's world stage. Since then, he's gotten better.

Back then, he was eating President George W. Bush for breakfast. Now he's snacking on President Obama as sushi -- eating him raw, in happy little bites.

Putin's ruthless, unforgiving and murderous. He also has a clear vision of what he wants, the strength of will to get it -- and a stunning ability to spot the weaknesses in his foreign counterparts.

Putin's the Evil Empire's belated answer to President Ronald Reagan. Where the Gipper focused uncompromisingly on bringing down the Soviet imperium, Putin focuses uncompromisingly on restoring imperial Russia.
ReutersFostering trouble in our backyard: Putin (l.) being honored by Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez, who's buying billions in arms from Russia.
Reuters
Fostering trouble in our backyard: Putin (l.) being honored by Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez, who's buying billions in arms from Russia.

Mar 23, 2010

Window on Eurasia: Putin Wants Israeli Attack on Iran Because That Would Send Oil Prices Up, Latynina Says

 Window on Eurasia: Putin Wants Israeli Attack on Iran Because That Would Send Oil Prices Up, Latynina Says
Paul Goble

Vienna, March 21 – “There is nothing Vladimir [Putin] would like more than for Israel to strike Iran,” Moscow journalist Yuliya Latynina said yesterday, “because they the price of oil would go up” and Russia, which is dependent on the profits from petroleum exports, would be a major beneficiary.
Speaking last night Moscow time on her “Access Code” program on Ekho Moskvy, the outspoken commentator offered this as an explanation for what Putin says that “Russia will help Iran launch the Bushehr Atomic Energy Station,” a statement that appeared “strange” to some given US efforts to enlist Russia’s help (www.echo.msk.ru/programs/code/665222-echo/).
The reasons for this are clear, Latynina suggested. “The Americans consider that for them Russia is not an important priority because Russia is not an outlaw country.” Thus, from their perspective, “Russia in fact is only pretending” to oppose the West on this, because in the US view, “it is impossible to conduct an aggressive policy while having money in Western banks.”
In brief, Latynina said, the Americans have concluded that Russians “won’t launch rockets against places where [they] have villas and bank accounts.” But, she continued, “Iran is something else. Iran is serious,” and that is why the US “is trying all the time to obtain from Putin support for sanctions.”
So far, the US had been unsuccessful, and Latynina offered the following “hypothesis” as to why that is so: “there is nothing that Vladimir Vladimirovich would like more than for Israel to strike Iran.” Such strikes would send the price of oil upwards, and that would at least in the short term benefit Russia.
Such a hypothesis, she continued, would be consistent with the general pattern of Russia’s general approach in international affairs at present, an approach “which consists of creating situations but not resolving them. Iran is the latest example of the creation of a situation.”
Latynina added that she “strongly suspects that there is only one person in the world who wants the Israelis to hit Iran a great deal more” than the Russian prime minister. “That individual is Iranian President Ahmadinejad,” a figure who beyond any doubt would use any such attacks as a pretext for moving against his opponents and thus solidifying his control.
Whether or not the outspoken Moscow journalist is correct in her hypothesis or not, Latynina calls attention to three important aspects of the current international system that many, especially in the United States, are reluctant to acknowledge because it would call into question their approach.
First, as Latynina’s remarks suggest, the world does not divide simply between a few “outlaws” like Iran and the rest of the international community which wants nothing more than to agree and force the outsiders to join the rest of the world in harmony and accord. Instead, the countries of the world are and will remain deeply divided because of different interests.
Second, one of the biggest of these divisions now is between energy exporters and energy importers. Russia is one of the former and would benefit at least in the short term from a rise in energy prices, especially since it has been suffering from their fall. Western countries and Japan, in contrast, generally are energy importers and would suffer if prices shot up.
And third – and this point is one that the US seems particularly unwilling to recognize at present – the current Russian government is quite prepared to take steps that create crises for others, confident or at least hopeful that it may gain as a result either directly or by putting its competitors like the US in an awkward or uncomfortable position.

Feb 15, 2010

Путин испортил биографию Ельцину? - Радио Свобода © 2010 RFE/RL, Inc.

Путин испортил биографию Ельцину? - Радио Свобода © 2010 RFE/RL, Inc.

Путин испортил биографию Ельцину?

31 декабря 1999 года. Ельцин оставляет страну на Путина (справа налево: Борис Ельцин, Александр Волошин, Владимир Путин)
01.02.2010 14:00
Сегодня – день рождения первого президента России Бориса Ельцина. Его главной ошибкой многие считают выдвижение Владимира Путина на роль "преемника". Но только ли Ельцин виноват в этой ошибке?

В этом году ельцинская дата "некруглая", 79 лет, так что отметят ее, конечно, попросту, по-семейному. Впрочем, и через год восьмидесятилетие первого президента России пройдет, думаю, без большого шума. Хотя, может статься, "тандем" решит политически целесообразным несколько освежить память о Ельцине, показать: зря, мол, нас упрекают, что принижаем историческую роль этого человека, выпячивая себя любимых… Прошлую, "полукруглую", годовщину − семидесятипятилетие − когда Ельцин-отставник был еще жив, отметили вполне помпезно, в Кремле. Вроде бы – вопреки желанию самого юбиляра, который предполагал провести этот день скромно, у себя на даче, в кругу близких людей.

Вот что рассказывал бывший премьер-министр Михаил Касьянов: после того испорченного семидесятипятилетия Ельцин "окончательно понял, что он живет? как пленник в "золотой клетке". Осознание этого факта для него, безусловно, было трагедией".

Люди, не приемлющие путинский режим, постоянно упрекают Ельцина: вот-де он так и не выступил публично против своего "наследника", хотя достаточно ясно видел, что тот гнет не туда. Касьянов рассказывает, что мысль о таком выступлении, видимо, приходила Ельцину в голову. Откровенно "сказать всё, что он думает", он собирался как раз после того "полукруглого" юбилея, случившегося в феврале 2006 года. Но − не сказал…

Судя по всему, к концу жизни у Ельцина накапливалось разочарование своим преемником. Однако независимо от того, как сам Борис Николаевич к исходу лет оценивал свой выбор, для всё большего числа людей становится очевидным: была совершена грубая ошибка. В своей недавно вышедшей книге "Главная ошибка Ельцина" я привожу слова, сказанные в разговоре со мной Борисом Немцовым − первым, кого Ельцин, еще в 1994 году, прочил в свои преемники: "Назначить своим преемником (речь, естественно, о Путине. − О.М.) собственного прямого антипода! Это надо было умудриться! Смотрите... Выбирая между цензурой и свободой слова, Ельцин безоговорочно был за свободу слова, Путин − за цензуру. Выбирая между бюрократией и частным предпринимательством, Ельцин был за частное предпринимательство, Путин − за бюрократию. Выбирая между выборами и назначением губернаторов, республиканских президентов, Ельцин был за выборы, Путин − за назначение. Ельцин очень гордился тем, что он установил добрые отношения со странами СНГ, с Европой, с Америкой, Путин же считает своим долгом со всеми поссориться... То есть стопроцентные антиподы! Все другое!.. И как у одного человека в одной голове могли уместиться два таких разных преемника − я и Путин?.."

Как же мог случиться такой выбор?

Без сомнения, Ельцин искренне желал, чтобы его курс на демократию, на рыночную экономику, на вступление страны в сообщество
На пути Виктора Черномырдина к статусу преемника встала Дума. Точнее – коммунисты со своими союзниками и "яблочники", вместе составлявшие в ней тогда большинство.
цивилизованных демократических стран был продолжен. В таком случае, следуя строгой логике, кто бы должен был возглавить Россию после него? В голове сразу же возникают имена Гайдара, Чубайса, того же Немцова… Но разве мог бы кто-то из них в реальности стать президентом? Не было и нет для нашего замечательного народа, для его подавляющего большинства более ненавистных имен, чем эти. Даже и "по системе Чурова" ни одного из них не удалось бы протащить в президентское кресло, а тогда этой системы в цельном, законченном виде еще не существовало, тогда еще к выборам относились достаточно серьезно.

Вполне нормальным демократическим президентом мог бы стать Виктор Черномырдин. К августу 1998 года, когда Ельцин решил вновь двинуть Черномырдина в премьеры и сделать "преемником", тот уже почти расстался с менталитетом "красного директора", вполне чутко откликался на слова "демократия", "рынок". Если бы к нему как к президенту приставить в качестве премьера грамотного экономиста-рыночника − того же Чубайса, получился бы вполне дееспособный тандем, во всяком случае не несущий в себе угрозу тогдашней уже достаточно демократической России. У Черномырдина была мощная поддержка разнообразных элит, к нему по-доброму относились простые люди. Но на пути Виктора Степановича к статусу преемника встала Дума. Точнее – коммунисты со своими союзниками и "яблочники", вместе составлявшие в ней тогда большинство.

Сейчас эти господа-товарищи стонут от путинского режима, рвут на себе волосы, как бы запамятовав, какую роль они сыграли в становлении этого режима.

Думцы дважды провалили кандидатуру Черномырдина. Ельцин колебался, выдвигать ли ее в третий раз. В случае третьего отклонения он мог распустить Думу и назначить новые выборы. Думаю, при желании Борис Николаевич мог бы все-таки сломить сопротивление Думы − с роспуском или без роспуска. Но в какой-то момент у него самого возникло сомнение: стоит ли все же делать ставку именно на 60-летнего Черномырдина? Он вернулся к своей давней идее: надо давать дорогу молодым. В поле зрения Ельцина к этому моменту уже замаячил некий чиновник, отвечающий этому критерию – относительно молодой. В конце концов Борис Николаевич решил, что новым президентом России должен стать человек в возрасте около 50.

Полагаю, это был первый шаг к ошибке. В той ситуации выбор более "возрастного" кандидата имел ряд преимуществ. У того, кому больше лет, всегда меньше амбиций. Соответственно − меньше вероятность, что, став президентом, он захочет напрочь переделать и переломать все, сделанное предшественником… Еще одно преимущество: в случае, если выбор окажется ошибочным, более пожилой преемник на меньший срок засидится в президентском кресле. А уж если в это кресло по ошибке попадет молодой − его ухода стране придется ждать долго. Сейчас мы как раз и оказались в такой ситуации: молодые "тандемисты" уже пробыли в Кремле 10 лет, а впереди нас ожидают еще как минимум 26 лет их пребывания.

В общем, Черномырдина "тормознули". Через год, к началу августа 1999-го, наиболее вероятными кандидатами в президенты, судя
Когда Чубайс узнал, что готовится отставка Степашина с поста премьера и замена его Путиным, он прореагировал на эту новость необычайно бурно.
по рейтингам, были трое: Примаков, Лужков и Зюганов. Но ни один из них не был приемлем для Ельцина (и для демократической России). Приемлемых оставалось двое: достаточно известный политик, премьер-министр Сергей Степашин и никому не известный директор ФСБ Владимир Путин. У первого рейтинг был достаточно высоким и рос, как на дрожжах, у второго он колебался около нуля. Первый вполне мог одолеть в предвыборной гонке нежелательную "троицу" − для этого просто требовалась грамотная и энергичная предвыборная кампания. Что касается второго… За счет чего он мог бы опередить Примакова, Лужкова, Зюганова, было абсолютно не ясно.

Кстати, об этой очевидной, вопиющей разнице между двумя кандидатами не уставал в тот момент твердить один из ближайших советников Ельцина, опытнейший политик и политтехнолог Анатолий Чубайс. Когда он узнал, что готовится отставка Степашина с поста премьера и замена его Путиным, он прореагировал на эту новость необычайно бурно.

− Вы идиоты! − кричал он двум другим ельцинским помощникам и советникам, Волошину и Юмашеву. − Вы сейчас просто угробите страну! У вас есть реальный кандидат в президенты... Да, я знаю все недостатки Сергея, но он − абсолютно вменяемый человек, представитель нового поколения. Убирая его, вы просто приведете к власти Примакова и Лужкова, это я вам на сто процентов гарантирую.

Однако выбор сделали не Волошин и не Юмашев − выбор сделал сам Ельцин.

Говорили, что Степашин его не устроил излишней мягкостью, нерешительностью. Уверяли даже, что до Ельцина дошли слухи, будто Степашин − подкаблучник, целиком находящийся под влиянием своей жены, крупной банковской деятельницы. А уж этого Борис Николаевич никак потерпеть не мог. Тут он был строго патриархален.

Вскипятить "президентский" рейтинг Путина, поднять его до заоблачных высот удалось при помощи весьма своеобразной "предвыборной кампании" − второй чеченской войны, развязанной как бы в ответ на взрывы домов (был там, правда, еще один повод − вторжение в Россию, в Дагестан, "громадного", в 650 человек, басаевского войска, но этот повод избирателей мало волновал: там у них, на Кавказе, все время что-то происходит, в России все давно к этому привыкли).

Нисколько не сомневаюсь, что любой из двух вполне реальных тогда вариантов − хоть Черномырдин, хоть Степашин − были бы
В конце концов, Ельцин ведь не выбирал Путина, он лишь ПРЕДЛОЖИЛ народу сделать этот выбор. ВЫБРАЛ же Путина народ.
лучше, чем на деле осуществленный. Стопроцентно уверен, что ни у того, ни у другого не поднялась бы рука задушить, задавить ростки демократии, которые с таким трудом проклюнулись в горбачевскую и ельцинскую пору.

И в заключение надо сказать еще об одном. Да, указав на Путина, Ельцин совершил ошибку, но было бы несправедливо возлагать вину лишь на него одного. В конце концов, он ведь не выбирал Путина, он лишь ПРЕДЛОЖИЛ народу сделать этот выбор. ВЫБРАЛ же Путина народ. И ответственность за ошибочный выбор несет не только Борис Николаевич, но и российские избиратели. Они эту ответственность делят пополам.

Скажут: ну, народ – ему на кого покажут, о ком телевидение больше продудит, за того и проголосует. Однако здесь уместно посмотреть, что сейчас происходит на Украине. Сколько бы Виктор Ющенко, уходящий с президентского поста, ни показывал на кого-то пальцем: выберите его (или ее), − украинский народ лишь усмехнется на это его указание. Оттого никаких предложений-указаний Ющенко и не делает. Такая вот разница между "оранжевой" Украиной и серой Россией.

ФОТО: Татьяна Юмашева и герои её блога