Russia turns page ("Agora Vox", France)
In 2008, Russia's attitude toward the West began to change. And this year, the law on non-profit organizations, the prohibition of the activities of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), overt contempt for the Council of Europe and the refusal to extend the Nunn-Lugar treaty were new manifestations of this change of course. In the 2008 article of the year, we wrote that the August war between Georgia and Russia was something of a turning point that marked Russia's return to a role that better matched the geopolitical stories country.
The first sign of this turn was the speech of Vladimir Putin in Munich in February 2007. Western media described this performance as a manifestation of an extremely tough position. In fact, for the president and the overwhelming majority of his fellow citizens, all this was only a typical Russian way of expressing his thoughts directly - without hints and other verbal tricks. So what did he say? “NATO is pushing its advanced forces to our state borders, and we, strictly fulfilling the Treaty, do not react to these actions. I think it is obvious that the NATO expansion process has nothing to do with the modernization of the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it is a serious provocative factor reducing the level of mutual trust. And we have a fair right to ask frankly - against whom is this extension? And what happened to those assurances that were given by Western partners after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are these statements now? Nobody even remembers them. ”
It is quite normal language for Russian culture. Nevertheless, one cannot blame Putin for the stupidity and misunderstanding of what kind of reaction may follow this kind of performance.
The events in the second half of 2012, we think, only confirm this turnaround, which we talked about in 2008.
Of course, this is not about returning Putin to the presidency. Everyone knows that his influence in Russian politics remained unchanged, even when he was just the prime minister of the country.
NGO law
If we look at events in chronological order, the first of them was the adoption of the law on non-profit organizations. It follows from it that those NPOs that receive funding from abroad and are engaged in political activities should openly declare this and use in all publications, including their websites, the name “foreign agent”.
Of course, one can argue about the literary value of such a formulation, but before resenting about this measure, it is necessary to deal with the nature of these NGOs and their work, both in Russia and in other countries.
The US intervention in the internal politics of Russia began immediately after the collapse of the USSR in 1992: a huge number of foreign advisers rushed into the country, who sought to assist in the “restoration of the country”. On the American side, this intervention was not at all disinterested. It was about raising the former enemy to its feet, while not allowing it to become such again. Some advisers did work out of good intentions, but this did not prevent them from making the most terrible mistake: they tried to restore the country without taking into account the opinion of the population. Subsequently, Stephen Cohen (Stephen Cohen) called it the formation of some ideal Russia.
The result was not only catastrophic economically, politically, and socially - for a long time it discredited the very notion of democracy in the eyes of the Russian population and, as a result, NGOs that declare themselves advocates of this very democracy.
Plenary meeting of the State Duma of the Russian FederationBack in 1991, the G7 tried to impose shock therapy on Mikhail Gorbachev. The President of the USSR realized that he would not be able to reform the country without foreign assistance, and he turned for support to the West. There, he was unequivocally given to understand that the provision of this very help is impossible without radical “shock” methods. Upon returning to his homeland, he noted that the methods proposed for him and the pace of transition were overwhelming. The press also did not stand aside. For example, The Economist newspaper advised Gorbachev, who was called “Mikhail Sergeyevich Pinochet”, to apply the methods already tested in Chile, despite the risk of “bloodshed”. “Chile Pinochet can serve as a practical example for the Soviet economy,” added The Washington Post.
After Gorbachev’s resignation, Boris Yeltsin set about implementing reforms based on theories of Milton Friedman (Milton Friedman). They were presented by a team of young economists, whom the Russian media quickly dubbed the Chicago Boys, and were sent by a group of European and American advisers. In October, the United States Agency for International Development (1992) offered a two millionth contract to Harvard University: it sent its lawyers and economists to Russia, who were assigned to monitor the work of the Chicago Boys.
As a result of such a brilliant intervention, Russia was in the ranks of the countries of not even the third, but the fourth world: GDP fell by more than 50%, and, according to the World Bank, at the end of the 1990s, 74 million Russians lived beyond the poverty threshold. At the same time, the country lost approximately 700 000 residents per year. As expert Vladimir Gusev notes, “the years of criminal capitalism cost the country 10% of the population”.
The population of the country, of course, could not help but notice what was happening. Local media actively discussed these problems - despite the fact that the foreign press stubbornly continued to pretend to believe in the “miracle” of the presidential years of Boris Yeltsin, this “great democrat”.
At the beginning of 2000, Russians were able to observe the intervention of other NGOs in Central European countries and the improvement of the methods of “non-violent” coup d'état, the idea of which was proposed by Gene Sharp, nicknamed by some of his colleagues “Clausewitz of non-violent movements” . The first attempt at writing was the former Yugoslavia and Serbia. According to The Washington Post journalist Michael Dobbs (Michael Dobbs), the removal of Milosevic cost the US government 41 a million dollars: this was the cost of the campaign, which the American ambassador to Serbia spent and funded by USAID through non-profit organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) , The National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI). From the Serbian side, the most active role was played by the NGO Otpor, which, by the way, offered its services in various states of the former USSR. One of its leaders, Alexander Marich, described the technologies she used in a large interview with the Politique Internationale.
Later, the very same American NPOs perfected their methods in Georgia and Ukraine, which make it possible to eliminate political rivals and at the same time make others believe that the source of all changes are spontaneous democratic movements. These movements were designated by the term "color revolutions."
In 2002, the US ambassador to Georgia was Richard Miles (Richard Miles - former ambassador to Serbia), and Mikhail Saakashvili served as justice minister in the government of President Eduard Shevardnadze. The Rose Revolution was largely financed by NED and Freedom House, an organization headquartered in Washington, which since 2001 has been headed by former CIA director James Woolsey. According to Jonathan Mowat, the Open Society Institute of billionaire George Soros (Georges Soros) also played a prominent role in the Rose Revolution.
After Georgia, it was Ukraine’s turn. According to the head of the European service of the British newspaper The Guardian Ian Traynor, the above-mentioned NGOs took part in the operation to destabilize the government, and if in Serbia the US government spent a million dollars on 41, in Ukraine, according to a journalist, everything cost him 14 million. William Engdahl, in turn, talks about 20 millions. It should be noted that the stakes in that game were high, because at that moment all the pipes through which Russia supplied its gas and oil to Europe passed through Ukraine.
The Russian government closely followed the actions of American NGOs in Georgia and Ukraine. Such nervousness of the authorities might seem out of place to an outside observer: Russia is not Ukraine and certainly not Georgia. However, when the same NGOs started to finance the so-called opposition groups at the end of 2011 of the year - the beginning of 2012 of the year, these events re-emerged in the memory of the Russian population and government. Hence the new law, which is designed to provide better control over the leading political activities in Russia by foreign organizations.
Procession of nationalists "Civil March"USAID ban
The second important indicator of change is the ban on USAID activities in Russia. Washington officially notified this decision in September, and it came into force on October 1. Moreover, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned his American counterpart Hillary Clinton about this in June. The surprise manifested in September by the United States speaks either of the disbelief of the American administration in the possibility of such a step, or of its complete insincerity ... Or maybe there is a little of one and the other?
USAID opened its representative office in Moscow in 1992, and in 2012, 60 Russians and 13 Americans worked in it. Over the years, 20 has funded a large number of programs in areas such as health care, the fight against AIDS, the training of judges and the repair of power grids, totaling about 3 billions of dollars. At the same time, it actively intervened in events in the economic sphere and, in particular, played a significant role in the monstrous memories that left behind privatizations, as a result of which a limited circle of people with connections got their hands on all national wealth. This process gave rise to the most hated Russians political class - the oligarchs. Now that help is so necessary in 1992, it is no longer needed, the population remembers only USAID's involvement in the 1990 disaster, and the leadership - about the desire for political intervention and attempts to rebuild Russia in the image and likeness of the United States or Europe, although today Russians We are convinced that they need to find a “third way” for themselves.
Of course, each of the parties is trying to present the situation in the most favorable light for itself. Nevertheless, even David Herzenhorn (David Herszenhorn) from The New York Times recognizes the ambiguity of aid programs in general, and the activities of USAID - in particular: "... from a historical point of view, in many countries these programs served as a cover for espionage."
The American ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul, in turn, noted in a joint book with James Goldgeier, published in 2003, that the US organized the distribution of humanitarian aid in the regions of Russia inaccessible in Soviet times, to simply find out that going on there.
At the same time, Paige Alexander (Paige Alexander), whose words are quoted in his article by David Herzenhorn, states: “We have always worked on behalf of the American people for the sake of the Russian people ...”
Today, Russia has restored its own finances and has itself become one of the state sponsors, in connection with which it no longer needs financial assistance from abroad. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs noted that Moscow is ready to cooperate with USAID in programs of assistance to third countries.
Europe answer
In 1996, Russia joined the Council of Europe at the initiative of its then President Boris Yeltsin. It happened at a time when the young Russian Federation was looking for role models and the support of the international community. Its economy lay in ruins, and chaos reigned in the public and political spheres. And since the attempt at rapprochement with the United States did not bring the expected fruits, Russia turned towards Europe.
Since then, their relationship has been marked by a series of more or less serious conflicts, some of which even led partners to the brink of rupture. This was the case, for example, during the first war in Chechnya, when Russia was temporarily deprived of its right to vote in the council. Sometimes Russia itself threatened to leave the council. Be that as it may, in the end she sought to show each time that she had a legitimate place in this organization aimed at solving democratic issues. Both partners appear to have refined the art of maneuvering between the necessary public statements and backstage political arrangements.
However, recently something has changed. If earlier, Russia rejected all criticism, but nevertheless showed a real desire to work with the Council of Europe to search for diplomatic solutions acceptable to both sides, now, it seems that this desire has dried up.
Assistance from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)For example, State Duma Speaker Sergei Naryshkin canceled a planned trip to Strasbourg for a meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). There he had to make a number of proposals on such major problems as "the development of European parliamentarism and the construction of Europe without dividing lines." “However, recent events have shown that my strategic proposals are unlikely to be heard today at PACE, since there are other desires among individual leaders of PACE and Russophobic-minded individual deputies,” Naryshkin told Interfax. “That is why I decided to refuse to participate in the session, but I want to emphasize that I will be ready to speak at the PACE as soon as the appropriate conditions are created for an objective discussion of the issues that I consider urgent.”
Even more surprising is Russia's reaction to the negative PACE report on the country's compliance with its obligations in the field of democracy and human rights. “We do not consider such language and appeals to be appropriate and, of course, we will not listen to them,” said Russian Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov on official PACE recommendations. Thus, the disagreement acquired unprecedented forms.
In addition, other changes occurred in the situation. In the current crisis, the European model has lost the lion’s share of its attractiveness. In this regard, it is also interesting to note that Putin’s criticism of Europe has flowed from politics to economics. The crisis also weakened Strasbourg’s position vis-à-vis Moscow. After all, in the end, Russia gives considerable contributions. In 2011, it provided 34 a million dollars, which is 12% of the total funding of the Council of Europe.
Refusal to extend the Nunn-Lugar Treaty
The Cooperative Threat Reduction Program Agreement, which is better known as the Nunn-Lugar Treaty (after the names of the two US senators who proposed it), was signed in 1991. His goal was to destroy the nuclear and chemical weapons with the support of American funding and experts in the context of the economic collapse that followed the collapse of the USSR.
In addition, the program was aimed at reorienting certain enterprises of the military industry and protecting “sensitive” technologies, while (real or fictional) cases of smuggling of nuclear materials became more and more. Another objective of the treaty was the control of nuclear arsenals and their destruction in the countries of the former USSR.
According to Russia, the program has completed its tasks. In addition, the country wants to get rid of the image of the applicant for assistance in the 1990-s. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov directly reflected this in his statement: “This agreement does not suit us, especially in view of the new realities, when the situation in Russia has changed, including our financial capabilities have significantly expanded.”
Thus, Russia made it clear that it does not intend to extend the agreement, which expires in May 2013.
Conclusion
Changes in Russia's behavior towards the United States and Europe suggest that the country considers the search for a new, own path to be the main one. At first, in the 1990's, Moscow tried to find role models and partners abroad. At first it was the USA. Officially, Russian initiatives were not rejected, but Washington continued to treat Moscow as a poor relative. As a result, Russia turned towards Europe, but even there it encountered only indulgence and a desire to interfere in the internal affairs of the country in order to redraw it in its own image and likeness.
The US persistence on missile defense was one of the reasons for the current turn. As, incidentally, attempts to intervene on the part of Europe, and especially the contempt for the Russian position in the Middle East. Moscow is not ready to forget how the Europeans and Americans took advantage of the UN resolution on Libya, against which it did not use its veto.
Ilya Yashin and Alexei Navalny after the end of the campaign "March of Millions"Anyway, the impetus for this new movement was primarily the inability of Western leaders to find a solution for the global crisis. For many years, Russians have been firmly convinced that the West lives in a kind of fictional world, while they themselves are really looking at things. The Kremlin has come to the conclusion that we are now experiencing a systemic economic and financial crisis. And that liberalism has demonstrated its limitations.
As Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs magazine, wrote, “Vladimir Putin of the third term is an experienced politician and quite pessimistic about world perspectives. His criticism of the West, for example, is now different from the one that sounded before. Previously, he was outraged by the inability and unwillingness to perceive Russia as an equal partner and the desire to harm its interests. Now it's not about that - he wonders why everything that the leading players do reminds of self-destruction, it only aggravates the already acute problems. ”
Thus, now we need to urgently begin work on the establishment of a new system. A return to morality and spirituality are integral parts of this search.
That is, the existing rift will become even larger? I do not think so. Is Russia looking to the East? This is quite normal behavior, given its geographical location and the development of the economy of Asian states, which will soon leave the West behind. Be that as it may, due to a multitude of geographic and historical reasons, it will still remain a link between Europe and Asia. “We have centuries-old experience at the crossroads of different cultures and civilizations. The fact that some people call Russia a Eurasian or "Euro-Pacific" country is by no means an accident, ”said Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.
Russia’s relations with the United States will still be ups and downs, at least until the clichés inherited from the Cold War times have completely disappeared. But they will not remain unchanged, since, according to the American expert on the Soviet Union and Russia Stephen Cohen, “Moscow expects nothing more from Washington, with the exception of military security. Everything else, including the capital needed to modernize the economy, can be obtained from a thriving partnership with China or Europe. ”
A good conclusion can be the words of Henry Kissinger (Henry Kissinger), which he said after the meeting in Moscow with President Putin: "Russian-American relations occupy one of the most important places in the world, and I hope that they will develop and improve in the coming months and years. "
Information