India-Russia: News & Analysis

[Austin]

I think it is in Moscows interest to engage Pakistan and build economic relationship with them and some military relationship. Russia is worried about the huge drug problem origination from Afganistan and would like to maintain its stake in the region in order to checkmate any future US moves in this region.

Moscow must have realized perhaps painfully that India is slowly moving into US orbit and ignoring Pakistan for any thing but to protect its own interest in Afganistan will be a big mistake.

[Austin]

Russia to spend about $7 billion for police reform in 2012-2013

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said in June that the large-scale reform would "require significant budget allocations."

"[Spending] 84.8 billion rubles [$2.7 billion] in 2012 and 132 billion rubles [$4.3 billion] in 2013 for the purpose of the interior ministry reform and increased allowances has been included [into the Russian budget]," he said.

Russian Rokot carrier rocket orbits three satellites

The Kosmos satellites will be used for military communications, while the Gonets-M will be part of Russia's large-scale Glonass satellite navigation system.

[Carl_T]

I believe this also has to do with Obama's rapproachment with Russia. He has gotten them to reduce the belligerence at Georgia, and I think the warming of US relations will make Russia more willing to cooperate with US plans.

[Austin]

[Austin]

I believe this also has to do with Obama's rapproachment with Russia. He has gotten them to reduce the belligerence at Georgia, and I think the warming of US relations will make Russia more willing to cooperate with US plans.

As long as US does not try to expand its writ on what Russia considers its own backyard or sphere of influence , US-Russia relation will always be cordial. Obama did the right step by removing the prospective ABM deployment in Poland and trying to reset its relations with Russia perhaps one of the aim was to gain Russia co-operation on Iran and the sound bites from Moscow and Putin statement indicate Russia is happy with Obama initiative.

But US-Russia relations always goes through its high and low , i think the Republican President are more aggressive against Russia and Democrats have a much more balanced approach.

[Johann]

You know Johann, you would be far more believable if you had a single neutral link backing your say so's...

I am sure some one with your intellect would understand well.

Well of course you don't have to take my say so! I thought the point of mentioning specifics without trying to push a particular source is that one would be free to go explore what all of the different sources had to say on the subject, whether through google or wikipedia. If on the other hand you'd like me to suggest a few places to start you could look at these;

The Kaliningrad protests;
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/arti ... /398873.ht
http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/ ... y-of-anger

The Khimki Forest Protests;
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/09 ... forest.php [there's a list of Russian environmental stories at the bottom]
http://russianreport.wordpress.com/2010 ... in-moscow/
http://www.mn.ru/local/20100802/187962688.html

Press freedoms in Russia;
http://cpj.org/reports/2010/04/cpj-2010 ... murder.php
http://cpj.org/2010/08/over-protests-me ... fsb-po.php
http://www.roac.nl/roac/_files/four%20f ... ronken.pdf
http://www.ejc.net/media_landscape/article/russia/ [details state ownership of media through firms like Gazprom]

legislative irrelevance & election irregularities
http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_ ... y_id=30185
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation ... _of_Russia

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Duma
  • http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalizat ... n_4433.jsp

[Johann]

I believe this also has to do with Obama's rapproachment with Russia. He has gotten them to reduce the belligerence at Georgia, and I think the warming of US relations will make Russia more willing to cooperate with US plans.

As long as US does not try to expand its writ on what Russia considers its own backyard or sphere of influence , US-Russia relation will always be cordial. Obama did the right step by removing the prospective ABM deployment in Poland and trying to reset its relations with Russia perhaps one of the aim was to gain Russia co-operation on Iran and the sound bites from Moscow and Putin statement indicate Russia is happy with Obama initiative.

But US-Russia relations always goes through its high and low , i think the Republican President are more aggressive against Russia and Democrats have a much more balanced approach.

The Bush administration was also focused on Iran as the number one *state* threat to itself and Israel after April 2003.

The difference is that the Obama administration thinks that UN sanctions on Iran will do more to contain the Iranian threat than missile defence systems. That is in keeping with their preference for multi-lateral vs. unilateral, and diplomatic vs. military approaches, while the Neo-Conservatives preferred the exact opposite. This has driven their policy of seeking Russian cooperation.

As for the thaw, Putin recently declared that he believed that while Obama was personally sincere about the "reset" in US-Russian relations he doubted the rest of the USG was behind him on that score. The fundamental reason is that the Obama administration has continued to reject the idea of an exclusive Russian sphere of influence (i.e. the CIS and states bordering the CIS), and continued to be involved in all the same places as before, just less confrontational, and less flamboyantly.

Now with these sorts of statements Putin could simply be raising the price of cooperation with the West against Iran and in Afghanistan. We'll see.

[Philip]

Nice post about the Moscow Nice train.It should be a great journey,but the ability to stop at cities along the way would be even better.I did the Turin to Pisa journey recently,great views of the Italian coast.Lousy train though even in 1st class!

The Russian bet-hedging with Pak is more an attempt to prevent China from occupying space in Afghanistan once the US retreats.To have China establishing a firm link on the ground all the way from TIbet into the Gulf/Arabian Sea at Gwadar,is also a nightmare for the Russians. China will then be able to engineer situations in Russia's vulnerable underbelly,the Central Asian states,whose oil cannot get out easily and has to go through Russian territory peferably.If the oil rich states can use a pipeline through Afghanistan with Chinese "Protection",it will undercut Russia's energy export boom.

India has only itself to blame with MMS acting as if he were an American citizen.However,Russia cannot keep India out from any coordinated Afghan policy as it would reduce its ability to steer Afghan affairs into a neutral corner.ASs Obama and the US "retyreat" from Afghanistanthe MEA and MMS must realise that as Gandhiji said,there is "no use in placing one's faith in a post dated cheque on a failing bank".

[Sanku]

@Johann

News reports from questionable web sources in media about issues in politics, about demonstrations and people getting together to stop highways etc? Sound pretty democratic to me.

I was hoping that you will tell us by showing comparative links on Russian and Chinese systems showing how the Chinese one party system is exactly like Russia. Since that was the claim you made.

But your links are so fascinating, I tried to take some of them seriously, such as this one

http://cpj.org/reports/2010/04/cpj-2010 ... murder.php

Now I would hope that if any one other than you or me is reading this they take a moment to click on the slide.

This lists countries where, Press freedom is endangered, I found it very telling that it ranks

8. Russia
10. Pakistan
12. India

You know something remarkable? There is no China on the list.



Wow, you guys are really something.

[Austin]

Now with these sorts of statements Putin could simply be raising the price of cooperation with the West against Iran and in Afghanistan. We'll see.

Johann , Russia-US relations can be cordial or bad , it cant be good or very good or very bad , depending on the administration at that point of time.

Much of it is due to the old hat in US policy making circles who would like to see emerging Russia as a challenge that need to be crushed with all force or preferably with force and encirclement policy , there are ofcourse old hats in Kremlin with similar views about US , but the west specially the US/UK have been quite dishonest in its dealing with Russia.

I think Western countries like Germany , France , Italy ( the old evil or europe ) would have no problem living with russia and vice verse as their energy and trade interdependence grows , there is no hostility towards russia as we see from US or UK.

[Austin]

Nice post about the Moscow Nice train.It should be a great journey,but the ability to stop at cities along the way would be even better.I did the Turin to Pisa journey recently,great views of the Italian coast.Lousy train though even in 1st class!

I would like to travel on a Trans Siberian Railway someday , they say its a nice long cold journey.

[negi]

^ Kapitan might as well please take em boys working on Bulava along. Never has the great bear struggled so much for developing a missile.

[Austin]

^ Kapitan might as well please take em boys working on Bulava along. Never has the great bear struggled so much for developing a missile.

Admiral sahab , they had always struggled life was never easy for them then , there were spectacular failures and success some how it remain hidden during SU days due to iron curtain , they actually tested a missile 25 to 30 times and most had to be success to qualify it as fit for deployment.

{ that reminds me of Topol-M deployment being criticized as not being adequately tested before initial deployment just 8 to 10 sucessful test and too much reliance on computers ( compared to 25 odd during SU times ) }

As for Bulava it is not a missile (design) problem but an industry issue , more of manufacturing QC and QA issue since there are 600 plus contractors and sub contractors across Russia that manufactures parts for Bulava and even sub-standard cartridges used for stage separation had led to Bulava failure , now infamously referred to as "sliding breakdown"

Its good they are struggling thats how they learned then and thats how they will learn now, its a blessing in disguise.

[Austin]

Not sure if this has been posted before but this is from Newsweek

Russia Invades Afghanistan—Again
Moscow is lending a hand on the fight against the Afghan drug trade—but its cooperation comes with a price.

[Austin]

Russian-Chinese security grouping may become counterweight to NATO

[svinayak]

Russian-Chinese security grouping may become counterweight to NATO

http://en.rian.ru/talk_shows/20100909/160533932.html

[Austin]

Russia moves forward a year

Pentagon prepares for first official visit of Russian defense minister

[Johann]

You know something remarkable? There is no China on the list.

Sanku,

I'm not sure how carefully you were reading that list, but it named countries where the state shows no interest or ability in preventing or solving the murders of journalists. In China journalists who attack state-linked private interests are often beaten up, often badly, but they are rarely killed. If they directly attack the Party and state, they go to prison.

For a list of stories from the same source on the lack of press freedom in China see here; http://www.cpj.org/asia/china/

You can also look at the section on Russia http://www.cpj.org/europe/russia/

If you will note the most recently signed Russian press laws are intended to give the state greater power to arrest anyone who publishes facts and opinions that are critical of the state.

demonstrations and people getting together to stop highways etc? Sound pretty democratic to me.

There were an estimated 100,000 demonstrations in the PRC in 2008, often against land-grabbing local authorities and exploitative factory owners. Few would say that made China democratic.

The heart of democracy is more than elections, it is a meaningful separation of powers. The fundamental problem in Russia remains the powerlessness of the legislature from Yeltsin's time onwards, and the lack of independence of the judiciary, a problem inherited from the Soviet Union, whose methods and institutions the PRC modeled itself on.

These are problems that Russia's *own* senior politicians, like Putin's own highly respected former prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov (prevented from running in elections on a technicality), and even Medvedev (see the quote below) acknowledge. The problem is they don't really get to make the really important decisions about change. That is in the hands of people like Putin who rebel against the very notion of internal checks and balances.

http://therussiamonitor.com/2007/08/10/ ... the-media/

This has many causes. The moral and ideological values of the Soviet Union, which departed along with communism, were not simply replaced during the 90s with European values. I remember a visit from a German judge, while I was still studying law. One of my classmates asked him why there was not a statistic about how much German judges make in bribes. Our guest was discouraged. We have always had a high level of legal nihilism. It has not been understood how a government that acts illegally shows disdain for fundamental rules,” admitted Medvedev.

[Sanjay M]

There is a reason why China doesn't have to kill journalists who speak against the state. Unlike the Russians, who face externally-supported dissent sponsored by Western Europe, the repressive agenda of the Chinese state is actually acquiesced to by Western Europe - therefore the Chinese don't have to go the extra step of liquidating these people, since they have no external sponsors who will keep mounting protests on their behalf abroad.

For example, is there any Johann-type of character who will relentlessly go around saying how the Chinese are far worse than the Russians in this or that respect?
Of course not - the political culture of Atlanticism only goes in one direction.

If the Russians were to imprison an anti-state activist, then that person's picture will be brandished in numerous protests all across Europe. We will keep hearing in the news about "Day 251 of captivity" for so-and-so. Thus, it's more effective for the Russians to liquidate them.
But if China imprisons some activist or other, will they see any international protests against this across the foreign capitols of the world? Hell, no!
They could keep the Dalai Lama, Panchen Lama, etc, etc, all in a rat-infested prison and nobody in the holier-than-thou West would care to give more than a muffled yawn. Their bodies could be cannibalized for the black market organ trade and nobody would care.

So therefore, given the wholesale difference in the way the "West" looks at dissent in Russia as compared to dissent in China, there is naturally going to be a marked difference in the way these countries deal with such threats. There is much more Western sponsorship of dissent in Russia than there is in China.

Oh, there are a few ultra-liberals who are free of geopolitical moorings who would still stand by Chinese dissenters, just as there are a few who might even worry about EVM fraud in India. But the overwhelming majority of "liberal" activists in the West are biased by selfish geopolitical considerations. I don't see more than handful of "liberals" worrying about EVM fraud in India - if there were, then the ruling govt would be rushing to assassinate Hari Prasad in order to get him off news pages, as opposed to merely imprisoning him. He'd be called a "suicide" case, like Milosevic.

[Johann]

There is a reason why China doesn't have to kill journalists who speak against the state. Unlike the Russians, who face externally-supported dissent sponsored by Western Europe, the repressive agenda of the Chinese state is actually acquiesced to by Western Europe - therefore the Chinese don't have to go the extra step of liquidating these people, since they have no external sponsors who will keep mounting protests on their behalf abroad.

For example, is there any Johann-type of character who will relentlessly go around saying how the Chinese are far worse than the Russians in this or that respect?
Of course not - the political culture of Atlanticism only goes in one direction.

If the Russians were to imprison an anti-state activist, then that person's picture will be brandished in numerous protests all across Europe. We will keep hearing in the news about "Day 251 of captivity" for so-and-so. Thus, it's more effective for the Russians to liquidate them.
But if China imprisons some activist or other, will they see any international protests against this across the foreign capitols of the world? Hell, no!
They could keep the Dalai Lama, Panchen Lama, etc, etc, all in a rat-infested prison and nobody in the holier-than-thou West would care to give more than a muffled yawn. Their bodies could be cannibalized for the black market organ trade and nobody would care.

Sanjay,

That description of the Western relationship with China is a *complete* departure from reality. Did you actually think any of that through?

The EU (like the US) *still* maintains an arms embargo on the PRC since the Tienanmen Square massacre 21 years ago. There is no arms embargo on Russia, in fact the French and now the Germans are negotiating *major* arms sales to Russia right now, and others will follow.

A Chinese Presidential/Prime Ministerial visit to a member state EU is *FAR* more likely to see active street protests (usually on behalf of the Tibetans) than any Russian visit by Putin/Medvedev. In fact the top Chinese leadership avoid visiting Europe when possible for this very reason.

In fact last month I had a vigorous debate with a China-based Swiss businessman who complained to me about how unfairly anti-Chinese the European press is on human rights, democracy, Tibet, Taiwan, etc, which he (like his Chinese friends) regarded as nothing more than US Govt-inspired propaganda. It really got interesting when an Italian artist friend of mine (a lefty, anti-American type) joined the conversation wearing a Tibetan solidarity T-shirt of his own design.

Western (both American and EU) routinely use diplomatic pressure to reduce/commute the sentences on Chinese dissidents. Most of these people receive asylum after their release. The Chinese condition for these deals is that publicity is kept to a minimum.

And whether under Clinton, either of the Bushes or Obama, the US has kept the pressure on the PRC in the Pacific and South China Sea.

So all in all the idea that the PRC somehow gets a free pass is absolute nonsense.

Russia, unlike China has held itself be part of Europe for many centuries, and wants a special relationship (visa-free travel, etc) with the EU based on geography and culture, so they're going to have the same standards applied to them as any other European state. They can not have it both ways. They don't get held to a higher standard than any of the neighbours, including Turkey, Morocco, Ukraine, Belarus, etc.

[sanjaykumar]

Russia, unlike China has held itself be part of Europe for many centuries, and wants a special relationship (visa-free travel, etc) with the EU based on geography and culture, so they're going to have the same standards applied to them as any other European state


Do you have any sense of the irony of that statement?

[ramana]

SanjayM, The roots of Western anti-pathy to Russia stem from the Great Schism which itself has its roots in the message of Peter and Andreas/Andrew. Try ot find the differences and you will get it.

And PRC is US munna. It has been 'paala, posha' as the minion in charge of East Asia. No one expected India to re-organize itself after end of British rule. Modern US scholars might spout liberalism etc but their support of PRC is based on over a century of ties to rear,guide and educate China to be their "non-colony" colony. "Open Door Policy etc all point to the idea behind that.

[Carl_T]

As long as US does not try to expand its writ on what Russia considers its own backyard or sphere of influence , US-Russia relation will always be cordial. Obama did the right step by removing the prospective ABM deployment in Poland and trying to reset its relations with Russia perhaps one of the aim was to gain Russia co-operation on Iran and the sound bites from Moscow and Putin statement indicate Russia is happy with Obama initiative.

But US-Russia relations always goes through its high and low , i think the Republican President are more aggressive against Russia and Democrats have a much more balanced approach.

Indeed, Obama's basic foreign policy idea is one of "cooperation between great powers", in which I believe the plan is to improve relations with both Russia and China to increase influence over them and giving up any US plans for domination in their backyards. The plan seems to be working with Russia as they are cooperating on Iran, but China seems to have failed. Yet I think they may be patient with China, and they will surely want China to play a greater role in Asia at the expense of its traditional pawns like Korea.

Certainly a departure from the Republicans who would project both Russia and China as strategic threats and build up buffer states like Korea, Georgia, Poland, Japan, Taiwan etc.

So all in all the idea that the PRC somehow gets a free pass is absolute nonsense.

China is seen primarily as a strategic rival which has to be countered and surrounded with attack dogs. Problem being that since economic relations with China are so deep, US has to give them control of their backyard, and some issues won't be raised.

[Sanjay M]

Johann, the fact is that Europe doesn't even share an ocean with China, which is on the complete opposite end of the Earth from them. It was Winston Lord who complained that "EU has only one foreign policy agenda - Airbus." He was referring to the fact that Europeans were considering lowering their arms export restrictions against China, in the hopes of gaining the carrot of more commercial aircraft sales in return. It's inevitable that Europeans will do such things in order to avoid falling behind in international competition. With respect to containing China's expansion, it is the Europeans who are the weak link in Western solidarity.

As for the Americans, I don't see any among them proposing "G2 with Russia." No, that's only being proposed in connection with the Chinese - by certain voices with obvious agendas.
The US has been totally blindsided by the rise of China, thanks to their resident extra-territorialist fifth-columnists within. Had anyone surveyed the US political analyst community 15 years ago, none of them would have forecast the strategic balance of power in the world that exists today. Oh, they might have been reasonably accurate on Russia, given their obsessive fixation over it - indeed, Russia hasn't moved that far in the past 15 years, in terms of its power.
But none of the US analysts would have predicted China would be lording over the international stage as it is now. Even the nearby Japanese wouldn't have, despite the fact of how much they have to lose.

Read any Atlanticist newspaper like New York Times or Christian Science Monitor, and see their little-disguised disdain for the Tibetans. Look at The Guardian even, and see how little they have in common with your Italian artist friend. As for your Swiss businessman friend, I see his views echoed in publications like The Economist, which once prided itself on its staunch defense of British Conservative values. Nowadays, they snipe at David Cameron like the trojan horse for Brussels that they are.

[Austin]

I think it is not the case that entire Europe has an hostile attitude towards Russia , its only UK supported by US that want to instigate and maintains a sort of hostile attitude towards Russia.

Probably the reason is to keep Russia under check and prevent its rise or keep it under low equilibrium.

From what I have noticed and feel Germany , France and Italy are more then ready build its relationship with Russia , probably because of interdependence on gas , a genuine desire to build mutual relationship and not to get swayed by US policy .. the previous GWB administration always referred to the trio as old Europe.

[Austin]

Nuclear status- Iran: The Bushehr atomic plant, built with Russian help, is commissioned, making it the first nuclear reactor in West Asia

Speaking at the inaugural ceremony at Bushehr, Sergei Kirienko, the head of Russia's Nuclear Corporation, said countries that abided by the IAEA rules had the right to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, Ali Akbar Salehi, described the commissioning of the nuclear plant as “a political victory” for his country. He said that despite political pressures and sanctions, Iran's peaceful nuclear programme had received a boost. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the country had the right, under the NPT, to enrich its own uranium to pursue its peaceful nuclear programme.

A new U.S. government report has listed 22 countries that continue to maintain strong economic links with Iran despite the sanctions. The U.S. and the European Union (E.U.) have imposed more stringent sanctions than the ones already present in the fourth round of sanctions imposed by the U.N. in June. The report singles out India as the state that allows companies to do business with Iran to the largest extent. The other important countries that have been singled out for criticism are Russia and China. Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna said the kind of sanctions the Obama administration wanted the government to implement would have “a direct and adverse impact on Indian companies and more importantly on our energy security”. Under American pressure, Indian companies such as Reliance have already ceased operations in Iran.

The U.N. sanctions or American laws are not meant to be automatically obeyed by states. The Indian government's decision to continue negotiations with Iran on the gas pipeline deal seems to have irritated the Obama administration. There have been suggestions from Washington that India can give up its hopes of occupying a permanent seat in the Security Council if it continues to do business with Iran.

[Johann]

As for the Americans, I don't see any among them proposing "G2 with Russia." No, that's only being proposed in connection with the Chinese - by certain voices with obvious agendas.
The US has been totally blindsided by the rise of China, thanks to their resident extra-territorialist fifth-columnists within. Had anyone surveyed the US political analyst community 15 years ago, none of them would have forecast the strategic balance of power in the world that exists today. Oh, they might have been reasonably accurate on Russia, given their obsessive fixation over it - indeed, Russia hasn't moved that far in the past 15 years, in terms of its power.
But none of the US analysts would have predicted China would be lording over the international stage as it is now. Even the nearby Japanese wouldn't have, despite the fact of how much they have to lose.

Sanjay,

I think you underestimate the role of realpolitik, and overestimate the ethnic factor in American strategic calculations.

America's involvement in the European theatre WWI and WWII and the Cold War had as much to do with American economic relationship with Western Europe (the world's largest concentration of both production and wealth at the time) as ideological revulsion at expansionist totalitarian regimes.

In the Post-Cold War era the global economic centre of gravity has shifted from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and I'd say the American establishment has taken note.

FDR throughout his time in office from his inauguration in 1933 (his was the first administration to recognise the USSR) worked for a co-operative relationship with Stalin. US firms like Ford were *vital* in building the Soviet industrial complex in the 1930s, and they did so with FDR's encouragement, just like US firms in the PRC in the 1990s under Clinton's encouragement. The terms agreed at meetings like Tehran in 1943 were essentially for global Co-Dominion.

A heavily leftist American press encouraged this process throughout every step of the way, until the breakdown in trust and the American rightist backlash that culminated in the McCarthy hearings and the Smith Trials. The fellow-travelers went along with the whitewashing of Stalin because they genuinely hoped for world peace, the committed communists because they saw greater opportunities for the revolution to spread, and the majority because Nazi Germany and Tojoist Japan were scarier and more repulsive.

That decade plus cozy relationship broke down because at the end of the day while trust could be engendered at a personal level between FDR and Stalin, it was impossible to maintain trust at a *systemic* level given their profoundly different natures. FDR's death lead to a breakdown in trust, communication and a rise in mutual hostility. The American response was Containment, with occasional attempts (Eisenhower, Reagan) at 'Rollback'.

The Americans are offering the PRC the *same* deal they offered the Soviets, to rule the world together, providing the Chinese open up their system to the American gaze to avoid a new Cold War. Hence the US DoD's annual public (and pretty much continuous private) request for honest Chinese accounts of defence spending, the strategic impulses behind them, more exchanges, etc. The Chinese have tried to keep the Americans happy, but the nature of the CPC - a conspiratorial, dictatorial party that survives through restrictive control on information can never really get the hang of the idea. The Americans always want to know more, and the Chinese response is barely suppressed rage. The American attempt to carve up the world with the PRC is not going to succeed any more than American attempt to carve up the world with the USSR.

Meanwhile, the Americans have not forgotten the lessons of 1933-48, which is why even as they attempt to Engage the PRC, they are prepared to pursue Containment against them.

Of course any new Sino-American Cold War will not look like the one from 1948-89 - the economic interaction will make it look more like the Anglo-Russian competition between Napoleon's defeat and the rise of Kaiser's Germany - a shadow fight, a new Great Game.

The Russo-American tussles since 1991 are a sideshow in a sense because until Putin's rise most of America's strategic establishment viewed Russia as strategically irrelevant. The Russians are a proud people, and this kind of treatment was simply impossible to stomache, because they remain in their minds a great power. Their whole goal under Putin has been to demonstrate that to the Americans, and win a restoration of American respect for Russian power, influence and interests. They've succeeded in many respects, but they're still not in the top three of American concerns.

Putin's attempt to offer America a choice between a Russian role as spoiler and strategic partner reminds me of De Gaulle's determination to restore France as a power of the first rank by giving America the same choice. De Gaulle raised the French international profile, built a semi-independent foreign policy, but was fundamentally unable to restore the French place in the global system. Putin's legacy will not be any different.

[Austin]

Medvedev insists Russia democratic, despite 'shortcomings'

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev dismissed on Friday any suggestion there is no democracy in Russia.

"That is not so; Russia is a democracy - young and immature, imperfect and inexperienced, but it is a democracy," he told the Yaroslavl Global Policy Forum.

"I know the shortcomings of this system - perhaps better than anyone else, if only because I have more information," Medvedev said, calling criticism of Russia's political system "unfair and tendentious."

"We are at the very start of our path and it is a path to freedom," he said.

[Austin]

Medvedev says U.S. 'envious' over European security system proposals

Medvedev proposed drawing up a new European security pact in June 2008, and Russia published a draft of the treaty in December 2009, sending copies to heads of state and international organizations, including NATO.

However, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton then said such a treaty was unnecessary. Her position was echoed by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

'My [U.S.] counterpart, President [Barack] Obama does not avoid a discussion of this issue; he does not say that it is harmful or unnecessary. On the contrary, we return to this from time to time," Medvedev told experts at the Global Policy Forum in Yaroslavl, some 250 km northeast of Moscow.

"But I would suggest that among our American partners a certain envy exists with regard to this idea," he went on.

"It seems to me though that it is necessary to rise over this envy and try to look the truth in the eye - without the creation of this system, our world will not be able to survive. We can help each other here,' he concluded.

[shukla]

X-post

After US, Russia upset over N-law

Moscow is now looking for an "official clarification" from the government on the law, recently passed by Parliament, which leaves a window open for making suppliers of raw material and equipment liable for damages in case of an accident. Russia's ambassador to India Alexander M Kadakin told TOI that Moscow wants to know about implementation of the contentious clause 17(b) which is being looked upon as a deterrent for suppliers.

"We expect from the Indian side official clarification as regards the implementation mechanism of the respective paragraph of the nuclear liability bill. As per our knowledge, at present such position is being prepared," Kadakin told TOI, emphasizing that the onus was on India, and not foreign partners, to find a solution.

Kadakin said, keeping in mind role of foreign partners, there was reason for India to find "mutually suitable formulae" that will serve the implementation of these ambitious plans. "We expect that to come out. One should not shift solution-finding to the shoulders of partners in the nuclear sphere, including Russia, who are sincerely ready to help India. Russia has been an all-weather friend of India. That will remain in the future. Hopefully, in this crucial issue, India will take the lead by herself," said Kadakin.

Recalling Russia's support to India in acquiring waiver from NSG for carrying out nuclear commerce, Kadakin said Russia has real, not virtual, and long-established experience, unlike other newly found partners, of cooperation with India in the field of peaceful atomic energy.

"That's why we hope that opportunities for its expansion and strengthening will be found with consideration to the interests of both sides," he added. While the liability law does not cover the nuclear plants Russia is building in Kudankulam, it will impact the proposed Russian reactors at Haripur and another site not yet allotted. The US state department had suggested last week that it was already looking at the possibility of changes in the law.

As a report in Wall Street Journal said on Friday, US is considering a government-to-government agreement with India which could take precedence over the law, but in that case, India will have to pledge indemnity to suppliers. Even Indian business honchos have criticized the law, which was passed with over 75% majority in Parliament, for making suppliers liable.

[Austin]

Medvedev: democracy crucial for Russia’s development

“I truly believe that democracy is a condition for the development of Russia,” Medvedev said.

Looking back at history, the president said that in the ’80s and ’90s, when Russia faced drastic changes in its economy, the very term of “democracy” was not seen as something positive within the society. On the contrary, democracy was linked to poverty, and even became synonymous with it.

“Following several years of economic growth and an increase of the quality of life, Russian democracy became profitable, proved to be well-grounded. Now the majority of citizens do not neglect it," Medvedev said. The president sees the growth of Russians’ prosperity as a key element in strengthening people’s trust in democratic institutions.

He also mentioned that some analysts try to draw a parallel between Russia and China, and criticize the Russian leadership for not having copied their neighbors at the end of the ’80s, when Russia was only choosing its way. That way, opponents believe, the country could have built a stable political system.

“We have good relations with China – a strategic partnership, as it is often called. But they have their own path which does not suit Russia now and did not suit it 20 years ago,” Medvedev said.

The president noted that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a big challenge for people. For some it even turned out to be a “tragedy”. However, the scenario could have been a lot worse and Russia avoided a civil war.

Talking to political scientists, the president referred to history several times pointing that Russia’s democracy is still very young. Yet he believes that the country’s role in building democracy in the world is rather significant. Explaining his stance, he said that is because Russia had no democracy for about a thousand years, but was always an authoritarian state. Therefore, its experience in building a truly democratic state – and Medvedev is quite confident it cannot be otherwise – is something that other states can use as an example.

“Today’s democracy [in Russia] is better than what it was like five years ago,” Medvedev stated.

As for accusations that Russia is still an authoritarian state, the president said that he completely disagrees with that. “There is no doubt that Russia is a democracy. We are at the very beginning of the path; there are things to work on. However, we are free,” he concluded.

The president was also asked to comment on the place of the Internet in the development of democracy, particularly – on the censorship in the Russian segment of the worldwide web.

The Russian government, “unlike governments in some other states", does not deal with the Internet at all, Medvedev stressed. The web leads its own life under its own rules – “same as in other countries”, the president noted.

Meanwhile, the entire idea of the necessity of building economy based on innovative technology rather than on exporting energy and resources is now being accepted by society, Medvedev said. Since political parties are also part of society, the president mentioned that the ruling United Russia party has never said “to my face” that they are against the idea of modernization. He noted that he has not heard it from Vladimir Putin – who leads the party – nor from its senior member Boris Gryzlov, who is also the State Duma speaker.

[Sanku]

You know something remarkable? There is no China on the list.

Sanku,

I'm not sure how carefully you were reading that list, but it named countries where the state shows no interest or ability in preventing or solving the murders of journalists. In China journalists who attack state-linked private interests are often beaten up, often badly, but they are rarely killed. If they directly attack the Party and state, they go to prison.

So assuming for a moment that Journalists were indeed killed in China (which no doubt you know does not happen, from first hand experience of being a journalist adverse to CPC in China, but never the less assume) which journalist would write about them?

The ones in Jail?

Or

the ones beaten up often -- quite badly.

Tell me honestly Johann -- do you really expect people to swallow this standard of sheer tripe?

Sorry, but this is way to blatant a Russio-phobe behavior to even try to hide under a veneer of neutrality.

[RajeshA]

Medvedev: democracy crucial for Russia’s development

Is Medvedev anxious, that Putin would take over Presidential position again, and Medvedev would be out in the cold?!

[Johann]

So assuming for a moment that Journalists were indeed killed in China (which no doubt you know does not happen, from first hand experience of being a journalist adverse to CPC in China, but never the less assume) which journalist would write about them?

The ones in Jail?

Or

the ones beaten up often -- quite badly.

It may be a mark of your lack of interest in the subject that you think that this is somehow privileged information, or some sort of stumper. Please visit the PRC thread more often as a start.

Quite often trials of journalists make the official news in China itself, with the defendants of course being labeled as agitators, spies, or just plain libelous.

There is also something called the internet out there, and there's millions of Mainland Chinese on it. Even though the Great Firewall of China censors material on democracy, it is still *the* place where local goings (city/province) on in China can more or less be freely discussed, like thuggery against investigative journalism.

Much of this is picked up and discussed in the Hong Kong press, as well as being passed through the Chinese human rights/dissident networks to groups like the CPJ, Reporters Sans Frontiers, Amnesty, etc.

Russia does not have the PRC's elaborate internet filtering system, but figures within the Kremlin have repeatedly and publicly sponsored proposals for limiting reporting and discussion on the internet to bring it in line with their control over TV, radio and print. I hope that does not happen.

Tell me honestly Johann -- do you really expect people to swallow this standard of sheer tripe?

Sorry, but this is way to blatant a Russio-phobe behavior to even try to hide under a veneer of neutrality.

Sanku I'm yet to be convinced you care to tell the difference between tripe, steak, and a fine sambar. You are welcome to your own opinions, but I'd suggest that this standard tactic of attacking the person instead of dealing substantively with the material (for example, the powerlessness of the Russian and Chinese judiciary and legislature as an inheritance of the Leninist system, the difficulty of candidates running against the Kremlin, etc) is a waste of time.

Do you even know what a Russophobe is? Russia's cultural contributions to the West and to the world have been invaluable. I've never considered Russia a threat since the end of the cold war - in fact EU-Russian integration is a good thing for both, so long as the EU does not water down its political standards to accommodate Russia. I've always said that Putin, despite his authoritarian tendencies was the first decent leader the Russians have had since Alexander III was assassinated by the communists in 1881. I've also always said that the West rarely acknowledges that much of Putin's authoritarian system was built by Yeltsin.

Liking Russia, and wishing it the best does not mean defending the nature of the current political system. Now let me turn the question around - does acknowledging the nature of the Chinese system turn one in to a Sinophobe? It certainly doesnt have to! Nor does examining the common features and heritage of the Russian and Chinese political systems of today mean that you have to look at them as being equally threatening. There's very few people who would say that, and I'm certainly not one of them.

[Sanku]

You are right Johann, I should not have used any words which could have been construed as a personal attack on you.

Having said that let me now say the same in more acceptable language, I find the set of links you put forth to support your claim of Russia becoming like China not indicative of that claim in any manner, chiefly I find the following issues

1) No comparison of actual laws of China and Russia showing how per law China and Russia show same behavior.

2) If the claim is supported by anecdotal data, like the ones shown by random clipping of a few events (without considering the number of those events in the back drop of total population, the trends of same etc etc) I will put forth that many of the links are of extraordinary dubious quality. Of which I have highlighted just one.

Overall, I find the claim remains unsubstantiated and weak.

[Austin]

Medvedev: democracy crucial for Russia’s development

Is Medvedev anxious, that Putin would take over Presidential position again, and Medvedev would be out in the cold?!

Well every body likes power and no one wants to stay away from it . Medvedev was an unknown personality before Putin handpicked him to become the next president and called him person of same blood.

Even if he is elected President next time he is a good and able young leader with his own vision and should ably lead the country for the next term.

I have the feeling West is more comfortable dealing with Medvedev than Putin as they consider him heavy handed.

[Austin]

Well with respect to Russia and China discussion , this is what Medvedev mentioned the other day

He also mentioned that some analysts try to draw a parallel between Russia and China, and criticize the Russian leadership for not having copied their neighbors at the end of the ’80s, when Russia was only choosing its way. That way, opponents believe, the country could have built a stable political system.

“We have good relations with China – a strategic partnership, as it is often called. But they have their own path which does not suit Russia now and did not suit it 20 years ago,” Medvedev said.

[Austin]

Moscow International Automobile Salon 2010

Some photos link

This one looks nice Infinity Essence Car

[Austin]

Russia sets up its own Silicon Valley

[Austin]

Russia's Kazan aircraft plant to build next generation bomber

The Kazan aircraft maker will start manufacturing a new strategic bomber, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday.

The plant will continue upgrading Tu-160 and Tu-22 long-range bombers and will then "start assembling a new-generation strategic bomber," he said.

He offered no indication of the new bomber's specifications or exactly when production would start.

Another Kazan-based enterprise - a helicopter plant - will start production of a new Mi-38 helicopter and continue making Mi-8, Ansat and Aktai helicopters that have already proved their worth, Putin also said.