Cyrill Vatomsky, Where All Politics Are Global

As always - this is not a transcript, only a brief outline of the radio show. Go to the blog site and click on "listen" button there when it is available to listen to shows and podcasts. Either listen there or download to your podcast software.

Opening with Hugo Chavez closing RCTV down. Similarities with Putin's policies are obvious. Also obvious is that Chavez is not against media moguls, he is fine with corporations that support him. Just like Putin is. And just like Mussolini was. Fascism, once again is a form of socialism where government and monopolism merge.

Moving on to other subjects, involving recently blogged ones like the Moscow Mayor Luzkov's law suits, rediculous ban on  export of medical specimen as well as perceptions by Russian people of who their friends and foes are.

Tell me who your friends are, goes an old saying. But how indicative is one's enemy list, especially when the list of friends grows dangerously slim?

Levada Center [unfortunately there is no longer an English language version of the site] has just released results of their study of who do Russians consider friends and foes. Results are all but predictable and Levada Center might just as well can the study for the foreseeable future or at least until coercive state dominated media loosens it grip on propaganda.

Not surprisingly, the two countries Russians consider best friends are Kazakhstan and Belarus. Both autocratic regimes, both highly dependent on Russia economically and politically. Also not surprising is the list of foes. Estonia is the foe number one and Georgia is the foe number two. It is mildly amusing and revealing that such tiny countries are now Russia's biggest foes. Talking of picking on countries from the same league does not cover the monumental differences in size, population, economic and military capacity. So why would this be? Why would Russian people feel threatened, or feel that people from these two tiny countries are the least friendly?

There are two compounding explanations. One obviously is coercion of state dominated media. I personally witnessed media and government induced hysteria on my two previous trips to Russia. Last September it was Georgia and this May it was Estonia. Such a drumbeat of attacks, accusations, snide generalizations, personal and otherwise, will most certainly have an effect on people's thoughts. Especially when opposing opinions are short and far between. Dynamic of apprehension towards Estonia does suggest an artificial spike: 28% last year and 60% this year. Vzglyad [Outlook] Business Daily references "experts" that "have no doubt that the moving a grave site war memorial in Tallinn was the cause". I would recommend that people at Vzglyad look in the mirror - their (together with other media outlets) distinctly negative coverage and fanning of hysteria has just as much to do with the spike.

But to say that Russian people are brainwashed and just swallow all what the establishment PR machine stuffs down their senses would not be fair. Media can not be a sole source for such animosity and expanding the list of "unfriendlies" illustrates a deeper meaning: Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, USA, Lithuania, Ukraine, Poland. If we drop the US from the list for obvious reasons of traditional animosity, the remaining list would shine with one glaring commonality - all these countries have with different levels of success embarked on independent political and economic paths. They have broken away or are trying to break away from the "sphere of influence" and according to some like a Visiting Columbia University Scholar Vasili Rukhadze , countries in that "traditional Russian sphere of interests" [what a monstrous feudalism oozing construct!] are in the gravest of dangers from the current Russian geopolitical offensive.

Of course, there is a third explanation and I have very little doubt it would be the most popular in Russia and among Russians themselves - the West is siccing mindless drones against Russia. The same Vzglyad Business Daily quotes the Chairman of the Union of Orthodox Citizens of  the Ukraine (sic!) Mr. Kaurov as suggesting that "orange" sentiments and desires to join NATO  have had "a detrimental effect on relationships between our countries". The article itself is called "USA trained enemies of Russia", while there is nothing in the body of the article to warrant such a screaming headline. One of the worst cases of petty journalistic dirty tricks Russian media is so full of these days.

Germany made it to number 3 on the list of biggest friends of Russia. It is an interesting but not an unexpected development. Russia has a history of pendulum shifts in relations with European powers. Sometime it would gravitate towards France, sometimes it would gravitate towards Germany. Only a quarter of respondents felt this way about Germany the third country on the list vs. 38% and 39% respectively that feel Belarus and Kazakhstan are friends. Tell me who your friends are...

The biggest surprise to me was inclusion of China as number four best friend of Russia. Talk about wishful thinking and delusions. In fairness, China has dropped and only 19% consider it a friend vs. 24% last year.

US commands a respectable 35% of those that think it is unfriendly to Russia, but this number had decreased since 2006 by 2% despite of all the anti-US rhetoric. Finally, 10% of Russians think there aren't any countries friendly to Russia. 2% think there aren't any unfriendly ones.

I just came back from an exciting and always invigorating Memorial Day weekend trip to London, only to read an interview with Economist's Edward Lucas at Marginalia blog. I spent quite some time there in wandering around town, ST. Paul, Westminster Abbey, looking among other things at memorials to those perished over the XX-th century. Beds of red poppies in England always produce bitter sweet butterflies in my stomach. What Sacrifice!

You want scary? Here is your scary thought for the week from Edward Lucas:

It is scary not because of how imposing, assertive and in the long run, aggressive Russia has become. There is a cold chill of Munich and betrayal of Poland oozing from this sentiment. Will The West betray the Balts again?

On the emotional level, the first reaction is resentment. These countries are all NATO members. This can't be. US and UK will not forget and forgo NATO members, even if Europe will. And European Union is different from NATO, isn't it?

But then I look at the rise of petty isolationism, the rise of petty nationalistic temper tantrums in the US both on the left and on the right and realize that if these people ever get to power in the USA, they will forgo the Balts just like they want to forgo Iraqi people now and cut and run in the face of difficulties or, in most cases of the left - for petty political gains.

The West owes Eastern Europe big time. Abandoning them to the USSR allowed the West to recover, flourish and eventually reclaim therm back peacefully, but lives of generations were lost. Only the first half of my life was lost in the USSR but the feeling of loss is quite strong nonetheless, believe me.

Even during these proudest of moments, while reflecting on previous sacrifices we should never forget that they will mean nothing if more sacrifices are not made because the work has not been finished. Resting on laurels of others will get us nowhere. Call this pompous all you will. I will raise you your petty cynicism.

I do hope what Lucas is warning about will never come to pass.

It seems that the only agreement Condoleezza Rice and Vladimir Putin could come up to is to tone down rhetoric in public. According to RIA Novosti:

The rest of the news story basically lists all open problems that did not get resolved in any meaningful way:

Meanwhile, this is not the only front where no agreement or even no progress had been achieved. According to business newspaper Vzglyad (Outlook, link in Russian) European  Union is not ready to start the next round of negotiations on the future framework of Russian-EU relationships. The upcoming Samara summit of foreign ministers
was going to kick off negotiations that are still being put on hold because of firm opposition from Poland and now Lithuania and Estonia. Poland wants Russia to lift meat imports embargo it imposed when Poland violated EU rules and tried to ship meat products purchased in third countries. As has been mentioned sometime earlier on the Embassy of the New World order radio, Lithuania claims that Russia is deliberately squeezing a Lithuanian refinery by cutting supplies. The general suspicion has been for a while that Russia would like to depress the value of the refinery and then purchase it for pennies.

According to Vzglyad Estonian foreign minister accused Russia of imposing unofficial sanctions against Tallinn.

The only way for Russia would be to drive a wedge between the Old Europe and the Eastern European newcomers to the Union. Vzglyad quotes Dmitry Orlov a political analyst as suggesting that EU made a mistake by expanding so fast and that the newcomer countries do not yet feel adequate responsibility for continent-wide issues. The implication of course is that Russia is mature enough to adequately feel that responsibility recent hysteria notwithstanding.

Unfortunately, Estonians are not helping their cause either. The same Vzglyad reports that deputy speaker of the Estonian Parliament called to ban broadcasts of Russian TV channels in Estonia. Someone pick up a phone and tell Kristina Ojuland that freedom of speech either exists or it does not. Obviously, Estonia is a European country and Europeans do not hold freedom of speech in the same respect as the US does - banning speech is normal in Europe, so maybe it is not that big a deal.

Once again I ask the question of purpose. Those roadblocks that Russia seems to be encountering in the West - are they hurting her, are they of her own doing or does she really care as long as she can bring progress in the East by announcing a complex deal to build a Near Caspian pipeline?

Although the vocal protests and PR driven saber rattling around the move of the Bronze Soviet Soldier to a military cemetery seem to be subsiding, the real fallout will be felt for quite some time. Not in form of direct actions but rather in attitude that will result in actions or inactions.

Western attitude towards relationships with Russia seems to be dull and lacking. It lacks excitement of the early 90-s, it lacks the sense of partnership of late 90-s and it starts loosing the sense of trust that came out of the Reagan Gorbachev era. Just like political capital of a leader can be wasted, political capital of a country can diminish. The US can most certainly feel some loss of political capital due to situation in Iraq, but it is expected from a controversial endeavor of such magnitude. But what has Russia spent its political and emotional capital on? What does it want to achieve by pursuing the current course? And is there a course after all?

Condi Rice is in Moscow right now and I would like to see a show of hands from people that think that something of any significance is going to be achieved during this visit? Kommersant Daily dies not expect any advances on any major issues.(link in Russian only) Oh, of course, they all will be addressed one way or another but both sides will likely agree to disagree.

The White House will sit and wait for changes during the complex period of transfer of power to a new president. Neither the White House no Kommersant seem to be considering a democratic transfer of power through free elections. There is no expectation of a vibrant political struggle, clashes of ideas, debates of where does Russia go from here. The course seems to be set, the engine running fairly smoothly and the crew is ready to go wherever the captain is taking the ship to. And this probably is going to be the main achievement of President Putin, if one can call it such: the tired crew is willing to follow the captain to that deserted island with a treasure chest. Does it occur to them that wild savages are going to eat half of them when going gets tough?

Who will send rescue teams when the mortgage bubble causes a crash in Russia? Brotherly Turkmenistan? Friendly China? Grateful Iran? It probably will not be neighbours like Estonians or Poles. Radio Echo Moskvy reports that Estonia might follow Poland and block the new Russia-EU agreement.

Estonian Defence Ministry will also ask NATO to consider computer attacks (most likely denial of service types) from foreign countries equal to military attacks. US Senator Richard Lugar had already suggested NATO should consider energy blackmail as a military upfront. Neither suggestion is likely to be adopted any time soon, but this forms a peculiar context around the course that Russia is pursuing. And my nagging feeling is that Russia is not pursuing any course at all. It has been taken for a ride by its President and his cohorts.

Russia has recently made several threatening moves using energy supply and flexed some natural gas muscle letting Europe know of its intentions. It has been on a buying expedition trying to purchase energy infrastructure in Europe, it has successfully blocked any potential for a TransCaspian  pipeline, routing all future gas from Turkmenistan through Gasprom pipelines and switches. Russian President hints of other sinister powers in the world that are supposedly seeking world domination. And then he takes two days to congratulate Nicolas Sarkozy with his presidential election victory in France.

What might be the purpose of this collision course? I can think of only one answer that does not involve excessive use of imagination: there is no purpose.  There is no plan, there is no course other then  the course of personal power and enrichment for the clan of Mr. Putin. To this purpose Russia's political and emotional capital is being spent with incompetent, criminal neglect.