Russia & CIS

A delegation led by Speaker of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey TBMM Mustafa Sentop has arrived in Azerbaijan

The EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy VicePresident of the European Commission Federica Mogherini advocated Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashiyans full engagement in NagornoKarabakh conflict talks without preconditions said a message on the website of the European External Action Service EEAS

The relations between Azerbaijan and Bulgaria are strategic Azerbaijani Minister of Agriculture Inam Karimov said

The existing format of negotiations on the settlement of the NagornoKarabakh conflict should be preserved EU Commissioner for European Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations Johannes Hahn said at a joint press conference with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan in Brussels according to Armenpress

EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus and the crisis in Georgia Toivo Klaar arrived in Baku

Another round of political consultations took place between Azerbaijans Foreign Ministry and the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland in Baku the Foreign Ministry told NewsAz

Paul Schwartz and I have published a new policy memo through PONARS Eurasia. Here’s a preview. Full memo may be found here, and the complete report that it summarizes was also published last week by IFRI.

—

To great fanfare, in May 2016, Russia hosted the third ASEAN-Russia Summit at the Black Sea resort of Sochi. Commemorating the 20th anniversary of Russia’s acceptance as an ASEAN dialog partner, this summit was intended to give new impetus to longstanding efforts by Russia and Southeast Asia to forge closer economic and security ties. Defying efforts by the West to isolate Russia, leaders from all ten ASEAN member states attended the summit.[1]Despite having recently skipped several high-level ASEAN summits, this time President Putin led the Russian delegation himself. He also met separately with the leaders of all ten ASEAN states. After the summit, Putin proclaimed that the two sides had reached agreement “on building a strategic partnership over the long term.” Demonstrating that this was not just mere rhetoric, the two sides also announced a raft of new measures during the summit, on topics ranging from security relations to closer political and economic ties. However, Russia’s ongoing Sino-centric focus, ASEAN’s limited ability to act collectively, and Moscow’s preference for bilateral relations will continue to predominate in its overall relations with the region.

A Pivot Toward Eastern Relationships?

In the aftermath of renewed conflict with the West over Ukraine, Russia sought to accelerate its much-discussed “turn to the East” in a bid to avoid isolation and to circumvent Western sanctions. This initiative, which was first launched after the 2008 financial crisis, was intended to allow Russia to reduce its dependence on the West, while harnessing the dynamic growth of the Asia-Pacific region as a means for modernizing the Russian Far East and ultimately Russia itself. The first concrete action to this effect was Russia hosting the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) summit in Vladivostok in 2012, followed by an acceleration in efforts to increase economic cooperation. While Russia has consistently placed the highest priority on increasing its ties with China, it also sought to diversify its relations with other Asia Pacific countries in order to avoid becoming overly dependent on Beijing. Southeast Asia figured prominently in this effort, as Russia sought to build upon its existing relations with countries in the region, especially Vietnam, Indonesia, and Myanmar, to maintain its strategic independence. In a move reminiscent of its recent policy in the Middle East, it also sought to expand relations with countries long considered U.S. allies such as the Philippines, Malaysia, and Thailand.

The pivot to Asia came to include three components:

• a civilizational alliance against Western “universal values”;
• a geopolitical effort to provide a regional alternative to the U.S.-centered alliance system; and
• a geo-economic push to integrate Russia into Asia’s dynamic economy.

Please click here to read the rest of the policy memo

 

On Wednesday, February 20, 2019, President Vladimir Putin delivered his address to the Federal Assembly, in which he presented his assessment of the state of affairs in the country and announced his vision of most important objectives for the near future. It has become Putin's 15th address to the Federal Assembly as President. Unlike last year's speech, in which Putin presented Russia's new outstanding developments and achievements in the field of defence, his present address was expected to be people-oriented. Putin's ratings have been declining as citizens are tired of waiting for the authorities to deal with a plethora of social and economic problems in Russia. Indeed, in the beginning of his speech, Putin declared that it was necessary to focus attention on internal issues of the country's development. According to him, all Russians will see improvements already in the coming months. About 95% of Putin's Address to the Federal Assembly was devoted to social issues, but he also spoke about Russia's military power, her state-of-the-art weapons, and did not miss a chance to intimidate the United States. "For people, it's important what is being done and how it can improve their lives, the lives of their families - now, rather than sometime. We don't need to repeat our mistakes of past decades and wait for the advent of communism. We must change the situation for the better, and the work of executive authorities at all levels must be coherent, meaningful and vigorous. It is up to the Russian government to set such a tone," Putin said. About 19 million Russians are living below the poverty line now, and this is too much, Putin said. "Solving demographic problems, increasing life expectancy, reducing mortality are directly related to overcoming poverty. Let me remind you that in 2000, over 40 million people were living below the poverty line. Now it is about 19 million, but this is too much still," Putin said during his annual Address to the Federal Assembly.The President said that he knows that citizens of Russia have to save on most essential things, such as clothes, medicines and even food. "In the near future, already this year, we should see real changes in people's assessments of the situation. Early next year, we'll summarize first results of the work on national projects," Putin said.The president proceeded to specific tasks that the Russian authorities are facing. According to him, the key objective is to protect people and support families. "Russia has entered a very difficult demographic period. The birth rate has been declining. The reasons behind this are purely objective. They are associated with enormous human losses and failures that our country suffered in the 20th century, during the Great Patriotic War and during dramatic years after the collapse of the USSR. We were able to reverse negative demographic trends in the early 2000s, when the country was in a very difficult situation, when it seemed that it was impossible to do anything, but we did it. We can do it again - to make the natural population growth resume by 2023-2024," Putin said in his message to the Federal Assembly.Speaking further about the need for social changes in Russia, Putin noted the following: - social allowances for children and for disabled individuals will be raised;- property tax exemptions for families with children will be raised;- mortgage rates will be below 8%, whereas special benefits will be provided for families with children;- large families will receive 450 thousand rubles to pay off their mortgage. Thus, taking into account the maternity capital, they will receive more than 900 thousand rubles to pay off the mortgage, which is a significant part of the apartment value in most regions of the Russian Federation.The President also drew attention to the need to immediately index pensions and annual cash payments beyond the subsistence rate.In conclusion, Vladimir Putin threatened the US leadership by saying that Russia's new missiles will be able to reach Washington and New York. However, Putin noted that Russia was not interested in confronting the United States. Russia is not a threat to the US  - instead, Russia wants to have equal friendly relations with Washington. He urged the White House to abandon illusions about gaining global military superiority.Putin said that Russia's new weapons, about which he spoke in his Address to the Federal Assembly in 2018, were capable of ensuring "unconditional security" for Russia. Russia is ready to take mirror and asymmetric measures should the US deploy medium- and short- range missiles in Europe."Russia does not intend to be the first to deploy such missiles in Europe. If they are made and delivered to the European continent - and the United States has such plans, in any case we have not heard rebuttals to that -  this will sharply aggravate the situation in the sphere of international security and create serious threats to Russia, because it takes some of those missiles 10-12 minutes to reach Moscow. This is a very serious threat for us. If it happens, we will be forced, I want to emphasize this, we will be forced to take mirror and asymmetrical measures in response," Putin said. Also read: Putin's Address to the Federal Assembly transforms to address to the whole nation

Russia and the United States have announced their pull out from the Treaty on Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty). It is believed that the treaty is going to end its existence in six months. US President Donald Trump said that the USA would prepare a response to Russia's alleged violation of the INF Treaty not to give Moscow military advantage over Washington. Trump's statements about the INF Treaty did not take Russia by surprise. Representatives of the Russian administration said that the announcement from Washington was an attempt to present cheap ultimatum to Russia, but Moscow was prepared for such a development. According to Sergei Ryabkov, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, the Americans were determined to cast the INF Treaty aside. "For the USA, this game is over. Their pullout from  the treaty will enable the United States to deploy 48 missiles in Europe, and those missiles will be capable of reaching the territory of Russia.Washington accuses Russia of violating the INF Treaty because of the missile known as 9M729. Washington claims that the range of this missile falls within the limits of the 500-5500 kilometres, which is prohibited by the treaty. On January 23, the Russian Defense Ministry arranged a special presentation of the missile to NATO military officials, but the latter showed a reluctant reaction to it. According toVladimir Dzhabarov, first deputy chairman of the Committee for International Affairs of the Council of  Federation, Washington's withdrawal from the Treaty on Short and Medium-Range Missiles will give free rein to Russia, and Moscow will be able to show adequate reaction to the States. According to Dzhabarov, the United States has already withdrawn from the INF Treaty, and Russia needs to take adequate measures, as the Americans have been developing and introducing prohibited weapons for long already. The ball is in Russia's court. Steffen Seibert, a spokesman for the Cabinet of Ministers o Germany, said that Germany would discuss with its NATO partners whether any measures were needed to ensure security of the allies and their ability to defend themselves. "We need to try to conduct a direct dialogue with Russia, as we do on many other issues, for example, on the situation in Ukraine, the Paris climate agreement, the crisis in Syria. Therefore, we need to find ways to work on non-proliferation issues. The best way is the multilateral framework, and the EU needs to try to play a big role here," Belgian Foreign Minister Didier Reynders said. "The withdrawal from the treaty is not the best solution. We would prefer the resumption of the dialogue," he added. According to Russian military expert Konstantin Sivkov, "Russia needs to create ultra-long-range missiles based on the X-101/X-102 missile and deploy about 400-500 of them. These missiles will be inexpensive, they are relatively small in size. The Americans do not have the air defence system, which would be capable of neutralising those missiles."According to him, Washington expects Russia to build medium-range missiles. However, Russia, as Mr. Sivkov believes, should eye the development of ultra-long-range missiles to create an adequate threat to the United States. According to the expert, the range of these missiles will reach about 10-12 thousand kilometres. Another option is the creation of mobile medium-range ballistic missiles based on the Soviet "Pioneer" missile. The upgraded version of the Pioneer-UTTH was capable of carrying three independently-targetable nuclear re-entry vehicles at a range from 600 to 5,000 km, with the probable circular error reaching 450 meters. That was a very good result for those years. Modern technologies can considerably improve the performance of the missile. Thirdly, Russia could develop an anti-ship medium-range ballistic missile similar to the Chinese DF-21D, designed to destroy enemy carrier strike groups at distances of up to 1500-2000 kilometres. Such a weapon can help Russia level out the enormous advantage of the US surface fleet in a possible scenario of defense of the Russian coastline. Also read: Without INF Treaty, USA can destroy Russian nuclear weapons easily

The US Treasury and Russian entrepreneur Oleg Deripaska concluded a deal to lift sanctions from his companies in violation of the Russian legislation. This is a dangerous precedent.On Monday, the US Treasury Department announced the lifting of sanctions against Oleg Deripaska's key energy companies - En+, RusAl and Eurosibenergo. At the same time, all sanctions against Oleg Deripaska remain in effect. Deripaska's companies came under sanctions in April 2018. As US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said at the time, Russian oligarchs and elites who benefit from the corrupt system will no longer be seen separately from consequences of destabilising activities of their government, such as interference in US elections. Deripaska was offered to reduce his share in the assets and thus lose the ability to control them. Deripaska reduced his share at En+ (its subsidiaries are RusAl and Eurosibenergo) from 70% to 44.95%, transferred a part of En+ shares to a charitable foundation and abjured the shares pledged to VTB.The parties also agreed on unprecedented transparency of activities, taking upon extensive, permanent requirements for auditing, certification and reporting.US Democrats tried to block the decision of the US Treasury to lift the sanctions from Oleg Deripaska's companies, but the Senate did not support the lower house. According to the BBC, various business groups put pressure on the administration to lift the sanctions from the three companies, because RusAl (Russian Aluminium) is one of the world's largest suppliers of aluminum. The imposition of sanctions on RusAl made world prices on aluminium go higher. The Board of Directors of En+ was renewed as agreed with British Lord Gregory Baker remaining its chairman. Noteworthy, it was Baker, who initiated the plan to lift sanctions from En+. New candidates were agreed with the US Treasury Department: Christopher Bancroft Burnham, Carl Hughes, Joan MacNaughton, Nicholas Jordan, Igor Lozhevsky, Alexander Chmel and Andrei Sharonov, the Vedomosti wrote. It just so happens that all members of the board of directors of the Russian company, with the exception of three, are US citizens. In general, these conditions look like a transfer of control over Oleg Deripaska's assets to the US Treasury, the Kommersant wrote. Vladimir Rozhankovsky, an expert at the International Financial Center, told Pravda.Ru, the above-mentioned agreement was concluded in circumvention of the law of the Russian Federation about the appointment of members of the board of directors in a public joint-stock company, such as En+. New members of the board of directors of a Russian joint-stock company can only by appointed at an extraordinary meeting of shareholders. "According to the law of the Russian Federation, one should prepare a dossier of candidates and provide exhaustive information about who they are and what they have to do with the aluminum industry. Afterwards, shareholders vote for or against those people," said Rozhankovsky."One should not let this case fade away, as this is a dangerous precedent. The Communist Party in the State Duma demanded an independent parliamentary investigation should be initiated into the changes, but their requirement was rejected. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the parliament should initiate investigation," the expert said."In the US, Democrats filed a lawsuit against the move to reverse the permission to unblock En+ accounts. As long as the process continues both in Russia and in the United States, one cannot announce the winner yet," Vladimir Rozhankovsky concluded.On Wednesday, a group of MPs representing the Communist Party faction suggested appealing to the Office of the Prosecutor General, the Federal Security Bureau and the Russian government to look into the legality of the agreement between the US Treasury and Oleg Deripaska regarding the plan to lift sanctions from En+ and RusAl. "Since January 18, virtually the entire aluminum industry of the Russian Federation is moving under the control of the US Treasury. We believe that the Security Committee of the State Duma should appeal to the Office of the Prosecutor General, the FSB and the government to look into the legality of the agreement and its compliance with Russian national security interests, because in such a situation the Americans take control of Siberia," Nikolai Kolomeytsev, first deputy chairman of the State Duma's Labor Committee said. Also read: Westerners teach Russian oligarchs a few good lessons they need to learn

It seems that the issue of the delivery of two Kuril islands to Japan has been coordinated with the Kremlin. According to Japanese officials, the United States is ready to assist in the matter. Yet, the Russian side has not released any clear comments on the subject. Shinzo Abe steps up on the Kuril Islands dispute On January 1, 2019, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced that peace treaty negotiations with Russia should be intensified. The delivery of two Kuril Islands to Japan can only be possible with full consent from local residents, who will have the right to stay on the islands, Abe said in an interview with Asahi TV channel.The Prime Minister of Japan also said that he had visited the grave of his deceased father, where he promised to work on the matter every day. Shinzo Abe's father - Shintaro Abe - had served as the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan from 1982 to 1986 dealing with relations between Japan and the USSR. This pledge that Abe gave on his father's grave was not just empty words, but an oath.Japanese media outlet Yomiuri reported that negotiations with Russia were nearing their final stage. Supposedly, the Japanese authorities will be ready to pay compensation to the people who left the islands if Moscow agrees to waive its claims for compensation.On Tuesday, Katsuyuki Kawai, Shinzo Abe's Special Assistant for Foreign Policy, said that Japan was counting on US support for the conclusion of a peace treaty with Russia, Kyodo news agency reported. Kawai noted that this would counterbalance the growing influence of China.Until recently, Japan was claiming four islands of the South Kuriles - Kunashir, Shikotan, Iturup and Habomai. The Japanese side refers to the bilateral treaty on trade and borders from 1855. Russia has been keeping the islands under control after World War II, when there was no peace treaty signed with Japan. In 1956, the USSR and Japan signed a joint declaration, in which Moscow agreed to consider the possibility of delivering Habomai and Shikotan islands to Japan after the conclusion of a peace treaty. The treaty had never been signed - the United States threatened Japan in the midst of the Cold War that a peace treaty with Russia would affect the process of returning Okinawa to Japan's sovereignty. It is worthy of note that Okinawa returned to the jurisdiction of Japan in 1972. Moscow's stance on Kuril Islands dispute Moscow firmly believes that the islands became part of the USSR following WWII, and Russia's sovereignty over them is beyond doubt, although the mutual economic use of the islands is possible. In November, Putin and Abe agreed to speed up negotiations on the peace treaty based on the 1956 Soviet-Japanese declaration. However, the sides differ as per the transfer of sovereignty.In December 2018, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that it was possible to transfer a part of the Kuril Islands to Japan if Tokyo recognized the results of WWII. Some believe that as soon as the Japanese receive two Kuril islands, they will ask for two other islands of the chain. In addition, Japan may consider building a US army base on the islands. According to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, President Vladimir Putin is committed to signing the peace treaty. Yet, Putin says that the military presence of the United States in Japan complicates the search for a formal peace treaty between Moscow and Tokyo.

The following article was published as a Strategic Analysis piece by the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats. It’s an expansion of some of the themes mentioned in a piece I co-authored with Michael Kofman for the Monkey Cage in the immediate aftermath of the Kerch Strait skirmish.

The November 25 naval skirmish between Russian and Ukrainian forces in the Kerch Strait was significant first and foremost as an open military confrontation between the two countries’ armed forces. But it also highlighted the fraught legal status of the strait and the Azov Sea, a status that Russia has been exploiting in recent months to exert political and economic pressure on Ukraine.

A slow march to confrontation

The confrontation began months before the recent events that brought the conflict to worldwide attention. In March 2018, Ukrainian border guard vessels detained a Russian fishing vessel in the Azov Sea for violating exit procedures from the “temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine”, namely from Crimea. The crew of that vessel remained in detention for several months, until they were exchanged in October for Ukrainian sailors. The captain of the Russian ship remains in Ukraine and is facing prosecution for illegal fishing and “violation of the procedure for entry and exit from the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine”. Since that incident, Russia has retaliated by detaining several Ukrainian fishing vessels.

In May, Russia also began to regularly hold Ukrainian commercial ships for inspection before allowing them to pass through the Kerch Strait. The initiation of this inspection regime largely coincided with the opening of a road and rail bridge across the strait. Russia claimed that the inspections were required to ensure the safety and security of the bridge at a time when some Ukrainians had publicly threatened to attack the bridge. The delays caused by the inspection regime, together with ship height restrictions caused by the bridge, have led to a 30 percent reduction in revenues at Ukraine’s commercial ports of Mariupol and Berdyansk, raising fears that Russia is trying to strangle the economy of eastern Ukraine.

In the same period, Russia also began to build up its naval presence in the Azov Sea, with at least three missile ships based there since summer 2018. Reports indicate that Russia plans to set up a full-fledged flotilla in the Azov in the near future. Ukraine has also strengthened its naval presence in the region, placing several armoured boats in Berdyansk and seeking to expand the base there.

The transfer of ships from Odesa to Berdyansk that caused the skirmish was part of this effort. Ukraine had moved naval ships through the Kerch Strait as recently as September 2018, but these ships were not armed. In that case, the ships were allowed to pass through without incident, although they were closely followed by Russian border guard vessels. The passage of two armoured boats through the strait in late November was thus the first attempt by the Ukrainian Navy to bring armed ships through the Kerch Strait since tensions began to mount and the bridge was completed in spring 2018.

The legal background

The status of the Azov Sea and the Kerch Strait is regulated by a bilateral treaty that was signed by Russia and Ukraine in 2003. According to the terms of the treaty, the sea is considered to be internal waters for both countries, and both Ukrainian and Russian commercial and military ships have the right of free passage through the strait. Furthermore, the treaty does not specify any particular advance notice procedures for passage through the strait. Foreign commercial ships are allowed to pass through the strait and enter the sea if they are heading to or from a Ukrainian or Russian port. Military ships belonging to other countries may be allowed passage if they are invited by one of the signatories to the treaty, but only with the agreement of the other signatory. In 2015, Russia unilaterally adopted a set of rules requiring ships passing through the strait to give advance notification to the Russian authorities, ostensibly to assure safety of navigation. These rules have not been accepted by Ukraine.

 

Please follow this link to read the rest of the article.

I have a new policy memo out with PONARS Eurasia. Here’s the first half.

Since the Ukraine crisis, the dominant Western perspective on Russian foreign policy has come to emphasize its increasingly confrontational, even revanchist, nature. Experts have focused on discontinuities in Russian foreign policy either between the ostensibly more pro-Western Yeltsin presidency and the anti-Western Putin presidency or between the more cooperatively inclined early Putin period (2000-2008) and the more confrontational late Putin period (2012-present). In this memo, I argue that Russian foreign policy preferences and activities have been largely continuous since the early 1990s. These preferences have focused on the quest to restore Russia’s great power status and maintain a zone of influence in states around its borders as a buffer against potential security threats. Throughout this time, Russian foreign policy has been neither revanchist nor expansionist in nature. Instead, it has been focused on first stopping and then reversing the decline of Russian power in the late 1980s and the 1990s and on ensuring that Russia was protected against encroachment by the Western alliance led by the United States. However, perceptions of Russian foreign policy during the post-Soviet period among other powers and outside observers have changed markedly as a consequence of a gradual increase in the extent of Russian relative power vis-à-vis its neighbors and especially vis-à-vis Western powers.

The Discontinuity Argument

The argument that Russia’s foreign policy has changed markedly over time comes in two versions. The first version of the discontinuity argument paints a sharp contrast between the pro-Western foreign policy followed by Russia in the 1990s under President Boris Yeltsin with the anti-Western foreign policy preferred by Vladimir Putin after he took over the presidency. In this reading, Russia under Yeltsin was in the process of transitioning to democracy and generally supportive of Western foreign policy initiatives despite some occasional disagreements. Putin’s Russia, on the other hand, has been committed to countering U.S. interests in the world, especially when it comes to the spread of democracy.

This narrative overstates the continuity of Russian foreign policy under Putin while understating continuities between the 1990s and 2000s. In particular, Russian support for the United States’ intervention in Afghanistan in 2001, which included putting pressure on Central Asian states to accept U.S. bases on their soil and a 2009 agreement to allow for the transit of military goods and personnel to and from Afghanistan through Russia, is downplayed in favor of a focus on Russian opposition to the U.S. intervention in Iraq. Serious disagreements during the Yeltsin period, particularly regarding Western interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, are seen as aberrations in agenerally pro-Western Russian foreign policy, while Russian involvement in the early 1990s in internal conflicts in neighboring states such as Moldova and Georgia is ignored altogether.

The second version of the discontinuity argument runs counter to the “good Yeltsin, evil Putin” narrative. It focuses on the very aspects of Putin’s first two terms as president that the first narrative elides. This narrative highlights differences between Russian foreign policy in 2000-2012 and the period after Putin’s return to the presidency. Here, Russia is described as a status quo power until the Ukraine crisis and a revisionist power thereafter. The episodes of cooperation in the 2000s are contrasted with Russia’s confrontational statements and actions after 2012. Meanwhile, the confrontational aspects of Russian foreign policy during Putin’s first two terms in office, such as efforts to divide the Euro-Atlantic alliance over the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, to force the United States military out of Central Asia after 2005, and to highlight the consequences of Western recognition of Kosovo independence in 2008, are downplayed. The result is a picture of Russian foreign policy under Putin that gradually slides from cooperation with the United States and Western institutions early in his presidency to all-out confrontation in recent years. While this trajectory is largely accurate in terms of the overall relationship, I argue that it is less the result of changes in Russian foreign policy goals and more a consequence of changes in Russia’s relative power in the international system.

The Argument for Consistency in Russian Foreign Policy Goals

While the two readings of post-Soviet Russian foreign policy presented above are at odds with each other, they both overstate the extent of discontinuity. In reality, with the possible exception of the very beginning of the Yeltsin period, Russian foreign policy goals have been largely consistent throughout the post-Soviet period. The main driver of Russian foreign policy both under Yeltsin and under Putin has been the effort to restore respect for Russia as a major power in world affairs. From the Russian point of view, this respect was lost as a result of Russia’s political and economic weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Evidence for this lack of respect in the 1990s included disregard for Russia’s opposition to NATO enlargement to Central Europe and NATO’s interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo. When NATO chose to admit Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in 1997, Russian politicians condemned the move as a betrayal of Russian trust and a sign that Western leaders and military planners still perceived Russia as a potential military threat. Russian leaders also felt betrayed and humiliated by the lack of consultation by NATO and Western state officials during the process leading up to the decision to bomb Serbia to stop its ethnic cleansing campaign in Kosovo. They argued that NATO enlargement and the Kosovo War showed that Russia had become so weak that its opinion no longer mattered in determining world reaction to regional crises. Further confirmation of this point of view came in the early 2000s, when Russian opinion was ignored in the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and in the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The response, both in the 1990s and under Putin, was to seek to restore Russia’s great power status while maintaining a zone of influence in states on Russia’s border as a buffer against potential security threats. As early as 1993, Russia’s Security Council promulgated a foreign policy concept that included “ensuring Russia an active role as a great power” as a key foreign policy goal and asserted a special role for Russia in the former Soviet republics.

Please click here to read the rest of the policy memo.

Russian Foreign Ministry on Syria, Ukraine, and Phony US Election Meddling by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org - Home - Stephen Lendman) Endless war in Syria continues despite most parts of the country liberated from US-supported terrorists.

Hysterical Media Promoted Fake News About Russia by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org - Home - Stephen Lendman) Major media in America and the West operate as mouthpieces for wealth, power and privilege - betraying their readers and viewers. 

Friendship between Russia and Belarus has become an issue recently. Is Russia going to be friends with Belarus in 2019 or is the brotherly nation going to join the ranks of Russia's enemies similarly to Ukraine? Moreover, Russian experts believe that President Putin should not be friends either with his US counterpart Donald Trump or Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. There are many questions about 2019, the answers to which we would like to know already today, as the year 2018 is about to end. Will Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko win the election? Will Russia sign a peace treaty with Japan? Pravda.Ru turned to political scientist, deputy dean of the Department of World Economy and Politics of the Higher School of Economics, Andrei Suzdaltsev, in a humble attempt to find out the future that the world is going to see in the next 365 days."Ukraine will hold the presidential election in March of 2019. What chances do you think sitting Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has to win the vote? "His re-election is quite possible, although this is not going to happen within the framework of the democratic expression of the will of the people. The people of Ukraine will most likely go to the polls to choose between two evils. Poroshenko may also try to extend his stay in power, as he has already tried having declared martial law in Ukraine. I do not think we are going to bid farewell to Petro Poroshenko in the spring of 2019.""Do you think they will impeach Donald Trump in the United States in 2019?" "I do not think so. Trump's impeachment is excluded. There is no technical opportunity for it,  because it is the Republicans who control the Senate. There is an unprecedented campaign going on against Trump now in the States, he snarls, and all this rocks the boat a lot. The US elite are confident that the country's political system is stable and strong, but they do not notice political changes that are taking place before them as the country is increasingly shifting towards a parliamentary-presidential republic. We believe that the situation, in which the Americans are looking for the enemy in the face of Russia is now fading away.""What unexpected decisions can Trump make?" "He is unpredictable. He has become a symbol of fruitless politics on the international arena. It is the US Congress that regulates all international affairs and US foreign policies in relation to Russia, China, Korea, Iran and so on. Trump is aware of it, and he tries to do something to attract attention to his persona of a major international leader. In fact, he is a hooligan rather than a leader. He has no potential in the international arena. It makes no sense for Russia to come to any agreement with Trump. There is no point for Putin to arrange meetings with Trump either. Donald Trump is not even close to such presidents as Nixon, Ford, or Reagan. There was no good from meetings with Barack Obama either. Obama had his head in the clouds. Trump tries to act to his own benefit of a public persona, so his PR stunts will continue in 2019. Russia does not need to contribute to his promotion. All the talking about Trump being a sincere person, who tries to improve relations with Russia is rubbish. The United States sees Russia as a nuclear power - the only power on the planet that can destroy the United States in return. That's all.""Do you think Russia can sign a peace treaty with Japan?""I come from the Far East of Russia, and I can understand Sakhalin residents, who are vehemently opposed to the idea of delivering a few Kuril Islands to Japan. A nation can lose its territory only during the time of war. We hadn't lost anything to Japan. The fact that this situation has become a stumbling block in our relations may also contain a hidden motive of Soviet diplomacy. It's like the Crimea that was given away to Ukraine. "I can see that the Russian administration is doing its best to find a solution to this problem. Yet, if we solve the problem by giving our land away, we will doom Russia. As soon as we give away small islands of Habomai and Shikotan, the Japanese will ask for Iturup right away. They will keep asking for more, and if we give the islands away, others will rush to ask for their pie too. The Japanese do not want to try to understand Russia, but this does not mean that we will sell out our territory.""How can Russia develop the relationship with Japan then?" "We should leave this topic behind and show determination. There are many of those in Russia who believe that we should surrender and give away the Kaliningrad enclave, the Kuril Islands, return the Crimea. Those people do not seem to understand that if we start giving away, the process will not end until we give away everything. At the same time, there are many people in Russia who think that Russia should stick to tit-for-tat policy: to sink foreign vessels that enter Russian territorial waters, and show tough response to other attacks. The West is bullying Russia. The British have been bullying us a lot lately. We were surprised that the Brits did not blame Russia for the drone incident at Gatwick Airport."There is also the "happy medium" - the people who think that Russia should act within the framework of international law, fight back, persuade, explain, stay firm in negotiations, perform without the national flag at the Olympics - in short, to tolerate and endure all these humiliations. Those people who stick to this kind of position know what patience is. One has to admit that the Russian administration sticks to this policy. "Let's take Belarus and its president Alexander Lukashenko. For 25 years, we have not seen any integration, but we have seen rudeness, an anti-Russian campaign inside Belarus and anti-Russian foreign policy. Lukashenko comes to Russia, puts his feet on the table and asks for another ten billion dollars. In fact, Lukashenko has been waging an information war against Russia too. He ships military hardware and fuel to Ukraine and then says rude things Putin in the face. Lukashenko is the only president in the world, who attacks Putin verbally in his presence. Strangely enough, Russia has invested over 100 billion dollars in Belarus in 25 years."Read article in Russian

The main event of the outgoing year 2018 for Russia is neither the FIFA World Cup nor even the opening of the Crimean Bridge. The main event is the pension reform, the negative influence of which has undermined public confidence in the president. Russia's Pension reform - Putin' brainchild Gone are the days when most Russians would praise President Putin for his desire to listen to no-one important people. However, the decision of the Russian government to raise the retirement age in Russia and the swift approval of the relevant law showed that Vladimir Putin listens to interests of big business representatives to the detriment of the interests of the population.Putin says that one would have to raise the retirement age in Russia in five or seven years anyway. Yet, this mantra of his sounds unconvincing just because this is a long period of time, during which it could be possible to break the negative trend. There were good proposals made at this point, but they were all about the redistribution of income of large capital and the introduction of a progressive taxation scale. Also read: Putin loses everything he hasFor example, the rate of returns in gasoline prices in the Russian oil industry is 40 percent. This is a lot. For comparison, the profitability in the mining industry in the United States is only ten percent. The average profit rate in Russia is eight to ten percent. In a nutshell, Russian oil companies receive extra high monopoly profits, the lion's share of which accounts for the natural resource royalty, which the state should appropriate to spend it on the needs of the people.Putin decided not to go that way. He took account of the fact that many current pensioners in Russia are indifferent to the pension reform, because they still receive their pensions. In addition, the majority of young Russians are indifferent to the issue as well, because it is too early for them to think about pensions. The decision to raise the retirement age in Russia has struck not just the material (people will lose 82.2 billion rubles of income during the first year of the program), but the psychological blow on the country.

On December 20, Russian President Putin started his 14th, large press conference. Interestingly, on December 20 Russia marks the Day of the Security Officer, which has been commonly known in Russia as the "Chekist Day" ('Chekist' is a Russian colloquialism for 'KGB officer'). After the press conference, Putin will attend a gala evening dedicated to this date.A record number of journalists - more than 1,700 people - were accredited for the press conference. Traditionally, Putin started the press conference with a brief report about the economic situation in Russia. The president said that Russia's GDP grew by 1.7 percent over the year. The real level of wages was growing, while the inflation rate remained on an acceptable level. As of 2018, it will exceed the target level of 4 percent and will make up 4.1-4.2 percent. The unemployment level in the country decreased to 4.8 percent having thus set an all-time low, Putin said. Life expectancy in the Russian Federation in 2018 increased to 72.9 years compared to 72.7 years last year.The budget surplus of the Russian Federation in 2018 will make up 2.1 percent of GDP.Putin stressed that Russia needs a breakthrough, a leap into the new technological order. This requires resources, which the government and the administration are looking for. Answering a question of whether the Russian economy is stagnating, Putin said that the government did not rely on "mechanical" calculations in its forecasts. The government plans a growth of three  percent by 2021. Fluctuations are possible, but it is important to enter another league of economies, Putin said, adding that Russia's goal is to become the fifth economy in the world.Speaking about the work of the Russian government, Putin said that he was "generally pleased" with the work that the Russian government conducts under the chairmanship of Dmitry Medvedev. According to the head of state, the budget surplus of 2.1 percent of GDP is a good indicator of the work of the government.Answering the question of whether the fiscal burden on Russian people was too high and how it could be related to the policy of the government that raises VAT, housing and utility tariffs for people and imposes a tax on self-employed individuals, Putin said that in many countries VAT makes up 20% (Russia is raising VAT from 18 to 20 percent from January 1, 2019). Putin said that the change in the VAT rate was necessary to reduce oil and gas budget deficit. He said that during the recent economic crises, Russia was forced to spend petrodollars, which led to an increase in the oil and gas deficit. It became possible to reduce it to 6.6 percent.Answering a question about fears of a new global military conflict, a global nuclear disaster and a world war, Putin noted that the world was underestimating the danger of a nuclear war during the recent years. The danger of such a scenario in the world is being obscured, which may lead to the death of human civilisation and even the whole planet, President Putin said. In the West, there is an idea of using low yield nuclear weapons, but the use of such weapons can lead to a global catastrophe, the Russian leader stressed.Answering a question about unnecessary conflicts between authorities and representatives of the younger generation, about dispersing rap concerts, banning young people from participating in rallies, Putin said that young people make the foundation of today's and future Russia.Yet, there are different kinds of young people, he said. He referred to the story of young paratroopers, who were fighting to death with hordes of terrorists. "Out of several dozen, only six of them remained, and they were fighting against two thousand militants," said Putin making a reference to the feat of 90 paratroopers from Pskov, who engaged in a battle with 2,500 Chechen terrorists near the village of Ulus-Kert in 2000. In addition to young military men, there are a lot of young volunteers and people who are engaged in search and rescue activities. "Those people make the stronghold of today and the future of Russia," Putin said, adding that "there are also talented musicians."He then condemned the drug propaganda in rap songs. "Do we want to degrade? In no way this should be encouraged. At the same time, one should counteract differently here," he said. Therefore, the Russian president considers the arrests of rap singers and the abortion of their concerts unnecessary, since such conflicts are counterproductive."Yet, there is nothing good in the fact that they use foul language in their songs - but let them sing so," Putin noted. "Art does not exist to indulge sordid values," he added. Speaking about the state of affairs in Ukraine, attempts to solve political problems of the Donbass by force are doomed to failure, Vladimir Putin said when answering a question from a correspondent of Ukrainian news agency UNIAN, who asked the Russian president how much money Russia spends on the Donbass, whose people Russia treats like slaves."Attempts to solve political issues with the help of force, and we can see that this is exactly what the Ukrainian authorities have been doing for several years, are doomed to failure. It must be understood," Putin said.Putin also said that Russian-Ukrainian relations are not going to go back to normal until there were Russophobes in power in Ukraine. "As long as there are Russophobes in power in Kiev, who do not understand what the interests of their own people are, an abnormal situation like this will continue regardless of who is in power in the Kremlin," Putin said.At the same time, Russia is interested in peace and prosperity in Ukraine, as Ukraine remains one of the largest economic partners of the Russian Federation. The trade turnover between Russia and Ukraine has increased compared to 2017. "This is not strange, because it is a natural connection, and these natural connections will someday make their presence felt," he added.Russia will continue providing humanitarian and other assistance to people living in the Donbass. "We really provide humanitarian, other type of assistance and support to people who live in this territory. We are doing it so that they do not get crushed, torn and eaten there. And we will do it further," said the head of state.It was not Russia, but the Ukrainian authorities that set up the blockade between the Donbass and the rest of Ukraine. "It is them, who shell the people, whom they consider their own citizens. Every day people get killed there - civilian people," Putin said. Maria Butina, a Russian citizen, who was arrested in the USA, was not executing any tasks for the Russian authorities, no matter what she may say.  Therefore, there are no grounds for accusations against Butina in the United States, Putin said. "They force her to confess, but I do not really understand what she can confess there, because she was not fulfilling any assignments of the state bodies of Russia, and I can responsibly declare this to you, no matter what she's saying there under the influence of threats of imprisonment for 12-15 years," said Putin. "I don't understand why they jailed her. There is simply no reason for it," Putin added.Speaking about the detention of foreign citizens in the United States, Putin said that Moscow would not be acting on an "eye for an eye" principle to subsequently exchange prisoners.Speaking about the case of Skripal poisoning, Putin said that there was nothing to comment on - Skripal and his daughter are alive, but the media hype does not subside. Thus, the Skripal case is only a pretext for an attack on Moscow, Putin said. "If there had been no Skripals, they would have come up with something else just to contain the development of Russia as a competitor," Putin said. At the same time, Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi is dead, but no one introduces sanctions, the Russian president recalled, pointing out the policy of double standards in the West.The Russian president believes that the Russian economy has adapted itself to international sanctions. Generally, Russia has always been living under sanctions which the West impose on Russia at the time when Russia's power and international influence grows. The West has lost the Russian market, and the number of jobs in the West has declined. The unemployment level in Russia is only 4.8 percent, while in EU countries, for example, in Spain, it reaches 15 percent, he said. Moreover, restrictions forced the Russians to think different in many areas. The share of transport engineering currently makes up more than 90 percent, while sales to the foreign market have increased.Answering a question about growing nostalgia for the times of the USSR among the Russians, President Vladimir Putin said that he considered the restoration of socialism in Russia impossible."I think it is impossible," he said. "A profound change in society excludes the restoration of socialism ... this is impossible," the president added.Speaking about elements of socialism that can and even need to be restored, Putin noted the equitable distribution of resources, the aspiration to reduce the level of poverty to a minimum, ensure medical and educational services to people on acceptable conditions. "We are carrying out such policies now. This is what our national projects aim to," Putin said. With regard to the withdrawal of American troops from Syria, Putin said that the United States withdraws troops from Afghanistan every year. The withdrawal of US troops from Syria, is not yet visible either, he noted.Putin said that there was no need for US troops to be present in Syria. "Let us not forget that the presence of US troops in Syria is illegitimate. The UN Security Council had not confirmed the presence of US troops in Syria. It is only the decision of the UN Security Council or the invitation from the legitimate government of Syria that can make the presence of a foreign military contingent in Syria legal," Putin added. Vladimir Putin agreed with Donald Trump who said that the United States contributed to the destruction of terrorists in Syria. "I agree with Donald here," he said but recalled that Russia had taken immense efforts to destroy terrorists."Despite all discrepancies, there's still quite a constructive dialogue between our specialists, our military men and special services to resolve acute problems in the struggle against terrorism in Syria," Putin said. Photo credits: kremlin.ru

L'Antidiplomatico Interview: Andre Vltchek interviewed by Alessandro Bianchi    AB: Let's start from today's crisis in the Sea of Azov. The European Union and NATO have given full support to Ukraine after the violation of Russian sovereignty by two Ukrainian vessels. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg gave his full support to Poroshenko, who declared martial law. What does a country like Italy risk in continuing its accession to NATO?

Trump/Putin Meeting at G20: On or Off? Showdown with China's Xi Jinping? G20 leaders will meet on Friday and Saturday in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Kiev's staged Black Sea provocation and Trump's trade war with China hang over the summit, along with US hostility toward Russia, endless war in Syria, and other major geopolitical issues. Major Sino/US differences highlighted the mid-November APEC summit - notably America first protectionism v. fair trade.