This document summarizes the state of U.S.-Russian relations during the Obama administration's early days in 2009. Relations had deteriorated in the prior year due to Russia's invasion of Georgia, but Obama signaled a desire for improved cooperation in his inaugural address. However, the Kremlin's behavior both before and after the U.S. election showed little sign of rapprochement. Experts debated whether declining relations were due to a resurgent Russian nationalism or U.S. policies that antagonized Russia, though the document argues that faults lay with both countries. Meanwhile, Russia under Putin and later Medvedev continued moving away from democracy toward a more authoritarian system and rigid state control.
This is presented during a session "Strategic cultures" at the symposium “Lessons of 1914 for the future of Asia” on 14-15 July 2014 held at Temple University Japan Campus. This symposium is organized by Andreas Herberg-Rothe, Faculty of social and cultural studies, University of Applied Sciences Fulda, Germany and supported by the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany in Japan.
This is presented during a session "Strategic cultures" at the symposium “Lessons of 1914 for the future of Asia” on 14-15 July 2014 held at Temple University Japan Campus. This symposium is organized by Andreas Herberg-Rothe, Faculty of social and cultural studies, University of Applied Sciences Fulda, Germany and supported by the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany in Japan.
Authors’ note:
A lot is happening parallel since Russia started its invasion of Ukraine on the 24th February 2022. In my bulletin I aim to conclude and share the information what I have gathered either through the support of the European Cyber Community or through my discussions with current and former members of armed forces in Europe. As my main profession – raising cyber resilience for organizations and nations to resist large scale cyber and hybrid incidents – requires me to holistically analyze the impact of multiple events happening parallel, I will not only focus on the cyber space aspect, but on all aspects that I find important to analyze and gain situational awareness with. For the strictly military movement timeline and events or ongoing fights there are many trustworthy resources out there, hence I will not put focus on that, same with each individual topics. This is not a study, I will not provide links and references. Many of the information you can simply search for, some are relying on personal discussions with subject matter experts.
#38 who is the true threat to the west-5pgDaniel Wambua
Very good essay about threats to the west. America and other western have had threats coming from the middle west and economic threats from Asia particularly China.
Newsbud Exclusive – “From the Atlantic to the Pacific”: Vladimir Putin & the ...Chris Helweg
During the Beijing summit, Putin intentionally contrasted the positive prospects of Eurasian integrations “to promote steady development, increase citizens’ incomes and improve education and health care” with the instability, uncertainty, and unpredictability in other regions of the world, including the EU and the U.S. He stated that in the U.S. “an intense internal political struggle continues, creating a nervous atmosphere in both politics and the economy,” while in Europe,
It wasn't so long ago that, while President Ronald Reagan presided, the "Evil Empire" of the Soviet Union collapsed. But, while the empire collapsed, the evil lived on. Today, the evil nucleus of that fallen empire, Russia, is more dangerous than ever with a greatly enlarged and active covert secret service effort. That effort is being expended to undermine western democracies so as to neutralize them in a bid to regain its empire, if not even more. Since the useful ideology of "Communism" collapsed along with the empire, Russian efforts at "agitprop" have been directed not through the traditional "left wing" extremists, but through the "right wing". In just ten days from the time of this writing we here in the U.S. will find out just how successful this Russian effort has been in undermining the freedoms, justice, and liberty that we Americans have become so complacent about. The result will fundamentally change the course of world history, perhaps in the worst possible way. To all patriotic Americans, please think before you vote; it may be the last real election you'll ever see.
PROJECT BLUE BEAM: False Flag. Free Book. 2020The Free School
https://journalistethics.com/
Free book available at this site.
This free book is about Project Blue Beam also known as Project Enoch. Project Blue Beam has not been confirmed as an official NASA project.
Project Blue Beam, Blue Beam, Serge Monast, NASA, Military, False Flag, Hologram, Rapture, Christianity, Jesus Christ, Religion, Messiah, Profit, Second Coming, Revelation
FEMA Camps, Second Amendment, United Nations, Serge Monast Rapture Christian America Hologram Holopgrahic Projection Direct Energy Military
New World Order One World Government New Age
Aliens UFO UFOs Unidentified Flying objects
It is true that studying the Kremlin's internal struggles is more an art than a science. Stratfor uses systematic approaches in much of its work, though the art of Kremlinology involves watching hundreds of seemingly unconnected events and pieces move while attempting to draw common threads into a narrative. It is an imperfect art but an important one nonetheless, and it is back in demand now that the Kremlin is facing multiple crises.
Washington DC - National Guard Presence - Inauguration - Citizen Journalist A...The Free School
https://journalistethics.com/
Download this document free at this link
This article is a citizen journalist account from on the ground in DC about the mass deployment of national guard and police around Capitol Hill. This article debunks fake news Fox, whose fake news aims to dramatize this event, pushing a narrative of fear, doom and violence.
Authors’ note:
A lot is happening parallel since Russia started its invasion of Ukraine on the 24th February 2022. In my bulletin I aim to conclude and share the information what I have gathered either through the support of the European Cyber Community or through my discussions with current and former members of armed forces in Europe. As my main profession – raising cyber resilience for organizations and nations to resist large scale cyber and hybrid incidents – requires me to holistically analyze the impact of multiple events happening parallel, I will not only focus on the cyber space aspect, but on all aspects that I find important to analyze and gain situational awareness with. For the strictly military movement timeline and events or ongoing fights there are many trustworthy resources out there, hence I will not put focus on that, same with each individual topics. This is not a study, I will not provide links and references. Many of the information you can simply search for, some are relying on personal discussions with subject matter experts.
#38 who is the true threat to the west-5pgDaniel Wambua
Very good essay about threats to the west. America and other western have had threats coming from the middle west and economic threats from Asia particularly China.
Newsbud Exclusive – “From the Atlantic to the Pacific”: Vladimir Putin & the ...Chris Helweg
During the Beijing summit, Putin intentionally contrasted the positive prospects of Eurasian integrations “to promote steady development, increase citizens’ incomes and improve education and health care” with the instability, uncertainty, and unpredictability in other regions of the world, including the EU and the U.S. He stated that in the U.S. “an intense internal political struggle continues, creating a nervous atmosphere in both politics and the economy,” while in Europe,
It wasn't so long ago that, while President Ronald Reagan presided, the "Evil Empire" of the Soviet Union collapsed. But, while the empire collapsed, the evil lived on. Today, the evil nucleus of that fallen empire, Russia, is more dangerous than ever with a greatly enlarged and active covert secret service effort. That effort is being expended to undermine western democracies so as to neutralize them in a bid to regain its empire, if not even more. Since the useful ideology of "Communism" collapsed along with the empire, Russian efforts at "agitprop" have been directed not through the traditional "left wing" extremists, but through the "right wing". In just ten days from the time of this writing we here in the U.S. will find out just how successful this Russian effort has been in undermining the freedoms, justice, and liberty that we Americans have become so complacent about. The result will fundamentally change the course of world history, perhaps in the worst possible way. To all patriotic Americans, please think before you vote; it may be the last real election you'll ever see.
PROJECT BLUE BEAM: False Flag. Free Book. 2020The Free School
https://journalistethics.com/
Free book available at this site.
This free book is about Project Blue Beam also known as Project Enoch. Project Blue Beam has not been confirmed as an official NASA project.
Project Blue Beam, Blue Beam, Serge Monast, NASA, Military, False Flag, Hologram, Rapture, Christianity, Jesus Christ, Religion, Messiah, Profit, Second Coming, Revelation
FEMA Camps, Second Amendment, United Nations, Serge Monast Rapture Christian America Hologram Holopgrahic Projection Direct Energy Military
New World Order One World Government New Age
Aliens UFO UFOs Unidentified Flying objects
It is true that studying the Kremlin's internal struggles is more an art than a science. Stratfor uses systematic approaches in much of its work, though the art of Kremlinology involves watching hundreds of seemingly unconnected events and pieces move while attempting to draw common threads into a narrative. It is an imperfect art but an important one nonetheless, and it is back in demand now that the Kremlin is facing multiple crises.
Washington DC - National Guard Presence - Inauguration - Citizen Journalist A...The Free School
https://journalistethics.com/
Download this document free at this link
This article is a citizen journalist account from on the ground in DC about the mass deployment of national guard and police around Capitol Hill. This article debunks fake news Fox, whose fake news aims to dramatize this event, pushing a narrative of fear, doom and violence.
The Cold War impacted nearly every aspect of American life in the im.pdffedosys
The Cold War impacted nearly every aspect of American life in the immediate postwar Era.
Considering the primary source documents concerning American foreign policy in the Early
Cold War (The Truman Doctrine, NSC-68 and the Ideological Cold War, A Critique of
Containment) as well as those concerning domestic Cold War politics (Joseph R. McCarthy on
the Attack, \"Who is Loyal to America\" and \"The American Way of Life\"), explain how
American foreign policy after 1945 affected American life at home. Based on these readings,
explain whether or not you believe the reaction to global communism at home and abroad was
appropriate and/or successful?
Solution
I. The Causes of the Cold War: The Great Debate and Beyond
The divide between capitalism and Communism, and the elimination of a common enemy at the
end of World War II, do much to explain the Cold War\'s onset, but each explanation minimizes
the complexity of the situation. As historian William A. Williams framed the issue: \"which side
committed its power and policies which hardened the natural and inherent tensions and
propensities into bitter antagonisms and inflexible positions?\" Scholars have provided several
answers, and while many would eschew such labels, it is helpful to think of their positions as
representing three general view points: orthodox, revisionist, and post-revisionist.
Orthodox historians, many of whom were former Roosevelt or Truman administration officials,
place primary responsibility for the Cold War on the Soviet Union. According to this view,
Moscow\'s aggressive and expansionist tendencies stood in stark contrast to Washington\'s
passive and defensive behavior. Herbert Feis\' studies, such as Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin:
The Wars They Waged and the Peace They Sought and From Trust to Terror: The Onset of the
Cold War, 1945-1950, exemplify this perspective. These works emphasize Stalin\'s
\"ruthlessness,\" \"spirit of mistrust,\" and revolutionary goals. Louis Halle presents a more
nuanced though generally traditional interpretation in The Cold War as History. While rooting
his analysis in \"realism\" and refusing to find fault with either side, he nonetheless presents the
Cold War as a \"power contest in which one expanding power has threatened to make itself
predominant, and in which other powers have banded together in a defensive coalition to
frustrate it.\"
In the late 1950s, a few scholars began to question the orthodoxy of American passivity and
Communist aggression. These \"revisionists\" rejected the notion that the Soviet Union was
solely to blame for the Cold War, suggesting instead that the conflict emerged more from
America\'s pursuit of its own global economic and strategic agenda. William A. Williams
spawned the revisionist school with his classic and controversial work The Tragedy of American
Diplomacy. Williams argues that the United States \"crystallized\" the Cold War in its
determination to further its traditional policy of Open Door expans.
The Crown Capital Management International Relations A troubled relationship ...inigohamish
For Russia and the United States, this year began with a new row that revived the atmosphere of a Cold War and deepened the political crisis in Russia.
The Crown Capital Management International Relations A troubled relationship ...inigohamish
For Russia and the United States, this year began with a new row that revived the atmosphere of a Cold War and deepened the political crisis in Russia.
Article in The Times of Israel by Andy Blumenthal: When it comes to Russia's real world military fighting doctrine, no one and nothing is safe until their objectives are met, even if that means World War III, as Russia's foreign minister has stated. Russia is already formidable and the largest country in the world with 11% of the world's landmass, and that is almost double that of the next largest country. Further, with a solidifying partnership of superpower countries Russia-China, coupled with alliances with authoritarian regimes of Iran and North Korea, an extremely dangerous Axis of Evil is developing that may soon threaten global stability and peace. Many are starting to question whether we are now entering the times of Gog and Magog, the devastating "end of times" war as prophesied in Ezekiel (38-39) before the coming of the Messiah and the Third Temple.
Paper Writing Service - HelpWriting.net 👈
✅ Quality
You get an original and high-quality paper based on extensive research. The completed work will be correctly formatted, referenced and tailored to your level of study.
✅ Confidentiality
We value your privacy. We do not disclose your personal information to any third party without your consent. Your payment data is also safely handled as you process the payment through a secured and verified payment processor.
✅ Originality
Every single order we deliver is written from scratch according to your instructions. We have zero tolerance for plagiarism, so all completed papers are unique and checked for plagiarism using a leading plagiarism detector.
✅ On-time delivery
We strive to deliver quality custom written papers before the deadline. That's why you don't have to worry about missing the deadline for submitting your assignment.
✅ Free revisions
You can ask to revise your paper as many times as you need until you're completely satisfied with the result. Provide notes about what needs to be changed, and we'll change it right away.
✅ 24/7 Support
From answering simple questions to solving any possible issues, we're always here to help you in chat and on the phone. We've got you covered at any time, day or night.
Reflection On The Cold War
Cold War Project Reflection Humanities 10
Former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul will discuss the diplomatic challenges facing the US and Russia, examining these issues from both the Western and the Russian perspective.
CAMBRIDGE IGCSE HISTORY REVISION 8 - WHO WAS TO BLAME FOR THE COLD WAR - POST...George Dumitrache
CAMBRIDGE IGCSE HISTORY REVISION 8 - WHO WAS TO BLAME FOR THE COLD WAR - POST REVISIONISTS VIEWS. A presentation containing: a view over post revisionists and post revisionism, views of John Lewis Gaddis, LaFeber, Leffler, Trachtenberg, Accuf.
his article argues that women of colour were central to the process of the legal transition to free labour in Cuba. Through an examination of legal appeals for freedom – which were often facilitated by new opportunities created by transition legislation – it shows that women were motivated by factors such as their families and frequently by their position as urban domestic servants. They could also make use of gendered understandings of slavery and freedom, which were socially prevalent although not legally enshrined. The paper argues that a focus on women and gender may have important implications for our understanding of Cuba's transition to free labour and of some of the constructions of citizenship and nationhood with which it was entwined.
In a May 9, 2024 paper, Juri Opitz from the University of Zurich, along with Shira Wein and Nathan Schneider form Georgetown University, discussed the importance of linguistic expertise in natural language processing (NLP) in an era dominated by large language models (LLMs).
The authors explained that while machine translation (MT) previously relied heavily on linguists, the landscape has shifted. “Linguistics is no longer front and center in the way we build NLP systems,” they said. With the emergence of LLMs, which can generate fluent text without the need for specialized modules to handle grammar or semantic coherence, the need for linguistic expertise in NLP is being questioned.
‘वोटर्स विल मस्ट प्रीवेल’ (मतदाताओं को जीतना होगा) अभियान द्वारा जारी हेल्पलाइन नंबर, 4 जून को सुबह 7 बजे से दोपहर 12 बजे तक मतगणना प्रक्रिया में कहीं भी किसी भी तरह के उल्लंघन की रिपोर्ट करने के लिए खुला रहेगा।
हम आग्रह करते हैं कि जो भी सत्ता में आए, वह संविधान का पालन करे, उसकी रक्षा करे और उसे बनाए रखे।" प्रस्ताव में कुल तीन प्रमुख हस्तक्षेप और उनके तंत्र भी प्रस्तुत किए गए। पहला हस्तक्षेप स्वतंत्र मीडिया को प्रोत्साहित करके, वास्तविकता पर आधारित काउंटर नैरेटिव का निर्माण करके और सत्तारूढ़ सरकार द्वारा नियोजित मनोवैज्ञानिक हेरफेर की रणनीति का मुकाबला करके लोगों द्वारा निर्धारित कथा को बनाए रखना और उस पर कार्यकरना था।
03062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
27052024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
Welcome to the new Mizzima Weekly !
Mizzima Media Group is pleased to announce the relaunch of Mizzima Weekly. Mizzima is dedicated to helping our readers and viewers keep up to date on the latest developments in Myanmar and related to Myanmar by offering analysis and insight into the subjects that matter. Our websites and our social media channels provide readers and viewers with up-to-the-minute and up-to-date news, which we don’t necessarily need to replicate in our Mizzima Weekly magazine. But where we see a gap is in providing more analysis, insight and in-depth coverage of Myanmar, that is of particular interest to a range of readers.
role of women and girls in various terror groupssadiakorobi2
Women have three distinct types of involvement: direct involvement in terrorist acts; enabling of others to commit such acts; and facilitating the disengagement of others from violent or extremist groups.
01062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
ys jagan mohan reddy political career, Biography.pdfVoterMood
Yeduguri Sandinti Jagan Mohan Reddy, often referred to as Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, is an Indian politician who currently serves as the Chief Minister of the state of Andhra Pradesh. He was born on December 21, 1972, in Pulivendula, Andhra Pradesh, to Yeduguri Sandinti Rajasekhara Reddy (popularly known as YSR), a former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, and Y.S. Vijayamma.
31052024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
Future Of Fintech In India | Evolution Of Fintech In IndiaTheUnitedIndian
Navigating the Future of Fintech in India: Insights into how AI, blockchain, and digital payments are driving unprecedented growth in India's fintech industry, redefining financial services and accessibility.
1. Unclenching the Fist
U.S.-Russian relations in the age of Obama
Cathy Young | April 2009 Print Edition
Last summer, for the first time since the now-misty days of Soviet communism, U.S.-Russia
relations took center stage in American politics. In the wake of the war in Georgia, with its
unnerving sight of Russian tanks crossing the border of a former satellite, talk of a resurgent,
aggressive Moscow was everywhere. During the presidential debates, candidates Barack Obama
and John McCain fielded questions on whether the Evil Empire was back.
By the time Election Day rolled around, Georgia was no longer on everyone’s mind and the Russian
bear seemed far less scary than the bears on Wall Street. Still, Moscow will be an urgent foreign
policy priority for the Obama White House. Apart from the sometimes forgotten fact that Russia
retains nuclear parity with the United States, it remains a key player in a number of vital
international issues, including nuclear proliferation and the war in Afghanistan. In the worst-case
scenario (unlikely in the near future, given Russia’s significant domestic and military problems), an
interventionist Russia could provoke the U.S. military to defend NATO allies in Eastern Europe or
the Baltic. If, on the other hand, relations with Russia take a more pacific turn, a genuine
partnership could help the U.S. scale down its military commitments in regions where a pro-
Western Russia would be a stabilizing influence.
Moscow warrants attention from those of us outside the State Department as well. Americans
need not be interventionists to have both a moral and a practical interest in the state of freedom
around the world. And in that light, whether Russia—a country that straddles Europe and Asia,
claiming large parts of both as its sphere of influence—is a friend or foe to liberty matters a great
deal.
During the presidential campaign, McCain was seen as the main Russia hawk. He certainly lived up
to the reputation in August, when Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s attempt to forcibly
retake the Moscow-backed separatist province of South Ossetia escalated into a military conflict
with Russian troops, then a full-scale Russian invasion of Georgia. McCain seized the moment,
declaring that “we’re all Georgians” and stressing his friendship with the strongly pro-American
Saakashvili.
Obama, after initially urging moderation on both sides, emerged as almost equally hawkish. He
condemned Russia’s incursion into Georgia and pointed out that, months earlier, he had urged
that Russian peacekeepers in the region be replaced with an international force to avert just such
a crisis. During the debates, the two candidates’ stands on Russia seemed virtually identical: Both
said they wanted to avoid a new Cold War while holding Russia accountable for bad behavior and
helping former Soviet satellites resist Vladimir Putin’s bullying; both stressed “energy
independence” as a way of reducing oil- and gas-rich Russia’s ability to throw its weight around.
2. While some on the left accused Obama of joining the Russia bashing out of political expediency,
his relatively hawkish stance was nothing new. In the June 30 issue of The Nation, Stephen F.
Cohen, the doves’ favorite Kremlinologist since Soviet days, chided both candidates for talking
tough instead of addressing U.S. policies that, he argued, had antagonized and provoked the
Russians. Writing on the Nation website on July 2, the investigative journalist Robert Dreyfuss
continued the criticism, noting that Obama was “getting advice from some of the hardest of
hardliners on Russia policy,” such as Hoover Institution scholar Michael McFaul, guilty of being
more concerned with “the autocratic nature of Putin’s rule” than with the “stability” it had
brought. As this issue goes to press, it is unclear whether McFaul will have a role in the Obama
administration, or who the president’s point person on Russia will be. But Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton is generally a Russia hawk, and she vied with McCain for the spot of top Putin
basher during the campaign.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin’s behavior both on the eve of Obama’s election and right after it seemed
to indicate the opposite of a rapprochement. On November 2, Nashi, the state-sponsored youth
movement, held a massive anti-American demonstration in front of the U.S. Embassy,
accommodated with street closures in traffic-clogged downtown Moscow for nearly a full day. The
event featured a short film accusing America of orchestrating both world wars as well as the war
in Georgia.
On November 5, in his first annual address to the parliament, President Dmitry Medvedev
slammed the U.S. as the main culprit in Russia’s economic and political problems. He also
promised to deploy new short-range missiles near the Polish border if the U.S. went ahead with
the installation of missile defense systems in Eastern Europe. The timing of this threat was not
coincidental, particularly since the speech had been rescheduled from October 23. Medvedev,
who made no mention of Obama in his remarks, later claimed with a straight face that the fact
that Americans had just elected a new president had slipped his mind.
In the next weeks, some friendlier overtures followed from both sides, with talk of a “fresh start.”
On January 20, Obama’s inaugural speech contained what could be a direct message to the
Kremlin: “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills
on the West—know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.
To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that
you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench
your fist.”
Who Lost Moscow?
Two schools of thought duel to explain the deterioration of U.S.-Russian relations. One blames a
resurgent, belligerent Russian nationalism that seeks to re-establish great power status and
dominance in former Soviet territories—and to use anti-Western paranoia to justify increasingly
harsh authoritarianism at home. The other blames an American intransigence that subjected
Russia to years of post–Cold War humiliation, rubbing the bear’s nose in defeat, ignoring its
legitimate foreign policy interests, and brushing aside its security concerns, thus producing a
3. backlash that endangers both Russia’s neighbors and U.S. national security. These opinions cut
across standard ideological lines of right and left: A leading exponent of the second school, the
British journalist Anatol Lieven, has published his commentary in both The American Conservative
and The Nation.
These opposing views could be approached, in a Marxian irony, dialectically, creating a unity of
opposites. Perhaps the higher truth is that the fault lies with both Russia and the U.S. but not
because the U.S. was too intransigent toward Russian interests. Rather, the U.S. was willing not
just to accommodate but to assist Russian misbehavior—and in many ways Washington set a bad
example that Moscow happily followed.
In an October 31 article for the Russian policy analysis website Polit.ru, the Carnegie Endowment
political scientist Lilia Shevtsova criticized Western leaders for placing too much emphasis on
personal relationships with Kremlin leaders and prioritizing “stability” at the expense of freedom.
The standard America-blaming narrative asserts that Putin’s strong support for the U.S. after the
September 11 attacks and his willingness to work with NATO in Afghanistan were rewarded by
nothing but slap after slap in the face. This story line overlooks the fact that Putin actually received
a major payoff for his cooperative attitude: de facto U.S. acquiescence in, and sometimes direct
collaboration with, the Kremlin’s brutal pacification of separatist Chechnya. Indeed, one little-
noticed irony is that the presence of U.S. military advisers in Georgia—recently seized upon by
Moscow and its supporters as evidence of hostile American meddling—began in 2002 as part of a
Russia-backed effort to get Georgia to drive Chechen rebels out of their enclave in Georgia’s
Pankisi Gorge
It could even be argued that the Bush administration’s aggressive unilateralism on the war in Iraq,
its often cavalier attitude toward human rights in the War on Terror, and its executive power grab
on the home front emboldened Putin to behave similarly. While most of the alleged Bush-Putin
parallels are specious, the actions of the Bush White House easily lent themselves to a self-serving
interpretation by the Putin clique, validating its cynical conviction that democracy is just a cover
for “might makes right.” The war in Iraq also made it far too easy to equate all efforts at
“democracy promotion,” even peaceful activities such as assisting civil rights groups, with naked
imperialism. This helped the Putin propaganda machine stoke Russian unease about the U.S. role
in the “color revolutions” in Georgia in 2003 and Ukraine in 2004, which replaced those nations’
governments with ones less devoted to Moscow.
Many Russians certainly experienced the collapse of the USSR and the weakening of Russia’s
influence abroad as a blow to their national pride. But the notion that the United States rubbed
Russia’s face in its humiliation is a myth. (If the West rejoiced in Communism’s Cold War defeat, so
did most of the Russian media and political elites at the time.) Yes, NATO expansion into Eastern
Europe and the former Soviet republics ranks high on the list of Russian grievances. But when
NATO first began seriously considering admitting former Eastern Bloc states in the early 1990s,
most supporters of expansion assumed that it could eventually include Russia—and Russia seemed
receptive. These prospects were undercut by pressures from neo-Communists and nationalists in
4. the Russian parliament, who wanted a less pro-Western stance, and by mixed signals and
suspicions on both the Russian and the U.S. sides.
It could be that the conflict is more contrived than real on Russia’s end. The belief that Kremlin
rhetoric about the American threat is a faux paranoia, calculated to enable bullying at home and
abroad, is shared by numerous commentators inside Russia, from the Carnegie Endowment’s Lilia
Shevtsova to former top-level Soviet arms negotiator Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin. Writing in the
independent online journal EJ.ru in April 2008, Dvorkin pointed out the obvious: Given Russia’s
nuclear potential, a military attack by NATO troops on Russia is unthinkable, no matter how many
of its neighbors join the alliance. The real danger to Russia, in Dvorkin’s view, is “civilizational
isolation” if the country continues to resist democratization and modernization and finds itself
surrounded by neighbors integrated into the West.
Russia’s Shaky State
There are plenty of signs that Russia in the Putin era has been traveling down that path. During the
last eight years, the messy and corrupt but relatively free political system of the Yeltsin era has
given way to rigid top-down control by the central state (in Putin-speak, “the power vertical”). The
political party United Russia, now headed by Putin, has been firmly established as the country’s
ruling force. Political opposition has been marginalized and local governments brought under
Moscow’s heel. Television programming, the primary source of news for the vast majority of
Russians, is under rigid censorship, and most radio broadcasting and print outlets have been
brought under government control as well.
Under the guise of restoring national pride, the Putin regime has pandered to the worst instincts
of the Russian public, cultivating a collective mind-set that includes a colossal yet fragile ego, a
siege mentality saturated with paranoia, hatred, and mistrust of anyone labeled as the enemy, and
the thuggish conviction that being respected equals being feared.
By the end of 2008, it was clear that the formal transfer of power from a term-limited President
Putin to new President Medvedev had not brought about even a cosmetic liberalization.
Medvedev’s nod to democratization in his November parliament speech consisted mainly of a
laughable proposal to build up the multiparty system by allowing parties that get 3 percent to 5
percent of the vote in elections to have one or two seats in the legislature. Control over television
was not lessened. A new opposition party led by former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, People
for Democracy and Justice, was denied registration, despite having more than the required 50,000
members on its roster, because the registration commission found improprieties in 37 signatures.
“Marches of dissent” were still violently suppressed. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the ex-CEO of the
Yukos oil company imprisoned in 2003 after he began financing the opposition, was still denied
early release.
5. While the government made some cautious overtures to liberals—including the creation of a
Kremlin-funded, loyalist “liberal” party called The Right Cause and the appointment of opposition
leader Nikita Belykh to a governorship —these moves were widely seen as attempts to co-opt
what remained of the opposition. (The creators of The Right Cause cannibalized and disbanded
one of the country’s two remaining legal liberal opposition parties, the Union of Rightist Forces.)
Other steps by the Kremlin could signal a further slide toward dictatorship. In his November
address, Medvedev proposed increasing the presidential term from four years to six; a
constitutional amendment to that effect was speedily enacted and ratified by the end of the year,
sparking speculation that the change would pave the way for new elections and Putin’s return to
the presidency. A few days into 2009, Medvedev signed a law that abolished the right to a jury
trial for defendants accused of terrorism, treason, insurrection, or fomenting civil unrest—despite
opposition from the usually docile Public Chamber, a monitoring body meant to function as a
collective ombudsman.
The gutting of jury trials is particularly alarming in conjunction with another government-backed
bill that would broaden the definition of treason. While current law defines treason as aiding and
abetting an external threat, the new version would include aiding “a foreign state, a foreign or
international organization, or representatives thereof ” in any activity that endangers “the security
of the Russian Federation, including its constitutional system, its sovereignty, its territorial
integrity and statehood.” The potential for criminalizing dissent is obvious: With its vague formula,
the law could be easily directed against an opposition activist or publication working with, say,
Amnesty International.
But could the situation change if, as quite a few Russian and Western pundits had predicted during
the transition, the Putin-Medvedev two-czar show turns into a power struggle? Tea leaf readers
have been hard at work looking for signs of a split, or of Medvedev growing a spine and a power
base of his own. By and large, such claims have been long on speculation and short on evidence.
Curiously, the proposed new treason law gave rise to one of the first actual signs of a possible
fissure in the “tandem.” On January 14, the independent daily Nezavisimiaya Gazeta reported that
the bill had been shelved by the committee on legislation in the Duma, the lower house of Russia’s
parliament, and sent back to the government for revision, at the insistence of members known to
be close to Medvedev. “Duma sources” told the paper that Medvedev could not sign the bill
without compromising his “liberal” image but could not openly veto it because it had Putin’s
6. backing; the only way out was to have it quietly amended. While this explanation indicates that
Putin’s power remains unchallenged, the leaking of such information to a major newspaper—
presumably by pro-Medvedev legislators—could also be an effective way to embarrass Putin.
Apart from the possibility of conflict at the top, the past year has starkly revealed the weaknesses
of Russia’s neo-autocracy. Even the successful war in Georgia, widely touted as a victory over the
Americans, exposed serious problems in the Russian army, including a lack of coordination, a
shortage of modern weapons, and breakdown-prone armored vehicles. Russia’s military faces
other problems as well. The Iskander missiles Medvedev has brandished as Moscow’s response to
U.S. radar bases in Eastern Europe have the problem of not yet existing; their production is
scheduled to start in 2010, but according to a November 18 report by the RIA Novosti news
service, some military experts doubt this schedule can be met “due to a lack of production
facilities and a workforce shortage.”
The war in Georgia and its aftermath—Russian recognition of the independence of the breakaway
Georgian provinces, South Ossetia and Abkhazia—also highlighted Moscow’s international
isolation: As Ilya Milshtein, a columnist for the liberal website Grani.ru, put it in a scathing year-in-
review column, Russia was reduced to “chasing its friends all over the world,” pleading for
recognition of the two states. So far, only Nicaragua has answered the plea; even Russia’s closest
allies among the former Soviet republics, such as Belarus, dragged their feet, despite being bribed
with loans and cheap gas. In another Pyrrhic turn, the victory in Georgia saddled Russia with two
new impoverished and violence-prone colonies. (Quick wits dubbed the Abkhazia- South Ossetia-
Russia alliance “AbOsRus,” which sounds exactly like a Russian vulgarism meaning, more or less,
“in deep shit.”)
After much defiant posturing, Russia proved eager to patch up relations with at least the European
West. In his speech at the World Policy Forum in Evian, France on October 8, Medvedev argued
that the U.S. had forfeited its global leadership role and that Europe and Russia should join in a
new security pact. The already slim chances of the E.U. being receptive to such overtures were
reduced to zero by Obama’s election—and by the fact that in 2009 the chairmanship of the E.U. is
held first by the Czech Republic and then by Sweden, both countries with a hard-line attitude
toward Russia. The January gas price dispute between Russia and Ukraine, which caused fuel to be
cut off to many European countries during a cold snap—and which, no matter how one apportions
the blame, was indubitably a result of Putin’s policy of using natural gas for political leverage—is
likely to further chill Russia’s relations with Europe.
7. Then, of course, there is the ongoing international economic crisis, which hit Russia especially
hard, on the heels of pre-existing economic problems that often had political roots. The first big
Russian stock market drop took place in late July, after an offhand comment by Putin sparked fears
that a major steel company, Mechel, was being targeted for a Yukos-style Kremlin vendetta. At a
cabinet meeting, Putin slammed Mechel for exporting raw materials at below-market prices and
possibly underpaying taxes, and noted that company owner Igor Zyuzin had been invited to the
meeting but had claimed to be ill. He then added, in his characteristic Tony Soprano–style lingo,
that Zyuzin “ought to get better soon, or we’ll have to send him a doctor and clean up these
problems.”
By the end of the year, the Russian market had lost 70 percent of its capitalization. Industrial
output dropped sharply; the ruble reeled, and the extent to which Russia’s relative prosperity of
the 2000s had rested on an oil barrel became painfully evident. Writing in Moscow News on
December 24, Anders Aslund, a senior fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics,
argued that the Putin government had squandered the opportunities offered by high oil prices by
building up huge and inert state-controlled companies instead of modernizing the infrastructure
and eradicating corruption.
The crisis also exposed the fakery of the Kremlin’s feel-good propaganda machine. While state-
controlled television news initially avoided the word crisis—except with regard to the West—
Russian citizens rushed to convert rubles to dollars.
In December, Russia heard the first rumblings of popular protest. An announcement of stiff new
tariffs on imported used cars sparked rallies and demonstrations in Russia’s Far East, where
importing used cars from Japan is a major source of livelihood. These protests quickly turned
political, with signs that called for Putin’s resignation, urged Medvedev to “stop being a wimp,”
and denounced United Russia as “bloodsuckers.” On December 21, a peaceful rally in Vladivostok
was brutally broken up by the federal riot police; several journalists were among those beaten and
arrested. While television news ignored the incident, many mainstream newspapers did not.
Remarkably, several local legislatures in the Russian Far East backed the protesters’ demands.
Will the protests spread? In a Levada Center survey conducted in December, nearly a quarter of
Russians said mass protests related to the drop in living standards were possible, and one in five
said they themselves might participate. Economic hardships may also aggravate other problems,
such as the tensions simmering in the Caucasus, where violence in hot spots such as Ingushetia
and Dagestan has never abated.
8. Widespread unrest could lead to a state of emergency, perhaps with Medvedev stepping down
and Putin returning to the Kremlin as de facto dictator. Another possible scenario is an attempt at
state-managed liberalization, a strategy proposed in a December report by the Institute for
Modern Development, a group of political experts whose board of trustees is headed by none
other than Medvedev. Such a liberalization, which would likely require the resignation and
scapegoating of Putin, could spin out of control into an “orange revolution”—or into a far darker
scenario of descent into chaos or a totalitarian takeover.
U.S.-Russian Relations in the Age of Obama
Whatever Russia’s near-term path, the Obama administration will undoubtedly pursue
cooperation right away in some areas, such as checking Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A review of
missile defense plans could be in the works as well, though Russia’s crude attempt at missile-
rattling blackmail makes an agreement in this area less likely.
A NATO membership track for Georgia and Ukraine is off the table at the moment. Unfortunately,
given the way NATO expansion was framed under Putin, continuing to delay these countries’
possible inclusion is likely to be interpreted as a signal that they are fair game for Russian bullying.
Moscow may have a legitimate interest in having friendly neighbors, but it has no more right to
object to a government with an independent political course in Ukraine than Washington has to
object to, say, a leftist government in Chile.
One way Obama might decide to neutralize the NATO expansion issue would be to revive the idea
of future NATO membership for Russia itself, contingent on genuine democratic reforms. At the
moment, the idea seems hopelessly utopian; but who knows whether it will still look that way in
2010? A Russia-enriched NATO presumably would focus its military priorities on anti-terrorist
operations—or, perhaps, begin to evolve from a military alliance into a primarily political one. One
potential danger of this scenario is that problems such as climate change could be redefined as
“security threats,” setting the stage for a far-reaching push for international regulations.
The real challenge to the Obama administration will come if there are signs of change in Russia,
especially if Putin is forced to resign and Medvedev emerges as the new leader with backing from
one of the Kremlin factions. Washington could find itself having to decide whether to prop up a
Russian government that declares itself pro-Western and liberal but has its roots in an
9. authoritarian regime and an illegitimate election, or watch it fall to demands for a new election
whose outcome might send Russia hurtling toward “red” or “brown” extremism. (Let’s not forget
those nukes.)
The Putin-era backsliding toward autocracy has convinced many, both in Russia and in the West,
that Russians are congenitally unfit for freedom and given to longing for empire and a czar. And
indeed there are powerful strands of authoritarianism, imperialism, and nationalist paranoia in
Russian society, and those elements have been assiduously cultivated by several yearsof official
propaganda.
But many polls show that Russian anti-Americanism is fairly shallow. In most surveys, about two-
thirds of Russians have said their attitude toward the United States is positive or mostly positive,
except for spikes of negative attitudes at moments of tension between Moscow and Washington.
While most Russians choose stability over democracy if they have to make a choice, majorities also
favor a strong multiparty system, democratic elections, and a mixed economy that encourages the
growth of small and medium-sized business.
From the vantage point of today, the incoming Obama administration has no way of knowing
whether Putinism is but a detour on Russia’s road to freedom or the dominant direction of
Russia’s future. Ultimately, that is only for Russians to decide. America’s role in the next few years
will be to find a delicate balance: to support liberal values without appearing to dictate far-off
events; to work with Russia when necessary while making it clear that a true partnership is
possible only if Russia (in Obama’s words) “unclenches its fist” and renounces anti-Western, anti-
liberal policy and rhetoric. The U.S. must simultaneously avoid the Yeltsin-era trap of
entanglement with a corrupt and failing government and the Putin-era trap of supporting an
increasingly authoritarian regime.
Cathy Young is the author of Growing Up in Moscow: Memories of a Soviet Girlhood (Ticknor &
Fields).