Posted on 10/27/2004 5:20:45 PM PDT by TapTheSource
JINSA Online, August 06, 2004
Putin Overseeing Troubling State Policies, Rollback of Russian Freedoms
Scholars See Growing Reasons for a Downward Trend in Ties with Moscow
Promising to “disavow authoritarianism,” former senior KGB spy Vladimir Putin was elected president of Russia in March 2000. Since then, Putin has presided over a marked scaling back of the freedoms Westerners had hoped Russians would gain after the end of the Cold War and the fall of communism. U.S.-based Russia experts believe that Putin’s increasing restrictions on civil liberties as well as growing political differences with Washington has put U.S.-Russian relations if not in a crisis, certainly more strained than the public is aware.
In December 2003, pro-Putin parties, including the United Russia party with 222 of the 450 seats and the Communist Party with 53 seats, secured an absolute majority in the Duma - the Russian parliament. Since the 2003 elections, the legislative body passed a series of laws that further restrict free speech and increase the government’s almost total control of all media outlets. Russia’s refusal to discontinue military and nuclear cooperation with rogue states, its adamant rejection of talks with non-radical Chechen separatists, its continued nuclear, chemical and biological weapons buildup, and its tightened restrictions on free speech and media all suggest that Putin and his cabinet are willing to accept strained relations with the U.S. During Putin’s first term of office, instead of furthering former President Boris Yeltsin’s policy of glasnost, the newly elected leader rolled back the policy of openness and tolerance for criticism of present policies and leaders. In late February 2004, three weeks before the March 14 Presidential elections, Putin fired his prime minister, Mikhail Kasyanov as well as his entire cabinet. Ilan Berman, Vice President for Policy for the Washington-based American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC), said that it is worth noting that the only powerful person who survived Putin’s purge was Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov. “It’s obvious that Putin was trying to get all his ducks in a row preemptively. Ivanov advocates an expansionist security policy and military doctrine, and this squares with Kremlin interests.”
Dr. Sarah Mendelson, a senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based policy research organization, said that there are many different things in which Russia is involved to which the U.S. objects. “As for the biggest point of contention, some people would say it is Russia’s support of Iran’s nuclear program, and others would say it is Russia’s human rights and democracy record. There are so many different issues concerning Russia that the U.S. has problems with.” Mendelson, who worked in Moscow at the National Democratic Institute, wrote in her CSIS policy memo 324, January 2004, that the U.S. must remember that Russian internal politics is a U.S. national security issue. “Russia’s political trajectory is heading in the wrong direction, and it is dangerous for our nation’s security to pretend otherwise. U.S. leadership should send a clear message to democratic and human rights activists that the United States stands with them.”
Many Washington experts argue that the main point of contention between the U.S. and Russia is Moscow’s condemnation of the war in Iraq. Ariel Cohen and Yevgeny Volk of the conservative Heritage Foundation assert that Putin was (and is) actually trying to deepen the rift between the U.S. and Western Europe. “[Russia] attempted to play the anti-American card in its relations with Western Europe,” the scholars wrote last spring.
Another area of disagreement concerns Russia’s support of Islamic countries known to harbor terrorists. Moscow has been assisting Iran’s nuclear program, pledging to help with the funding and construction of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear reactor. Russia has refused to halt its arms sales to Syria, despite continued U.S. efforts to dissuade Putin from further arming the state accused of harboring numerous terrorist groups.
Berman, editor of the AFPC publications Missile Defense Briefing Report and Eurasia Security Watch, claimed Iran could be the next Iraq, as far as the U.S. is concerned. “Iran has the potential to be a serious irritant to U.S.-Russian relations. By this time next year, Iran is likely to replace Iraq as the major concern of the United States, and the issue of Russo-Iranian cooperation will be very much on the table” Additionally, Russia has maintained ties with North Korea and Cuba.
A third major complaint U.S. policymakers have is Russia’s refusal to dismantle much of its stock of intercontinental range ballistic missiles armed with multiple, independently targeted warheads. As late as March 2004, the Russian Defense Ministry has asserted the missiles will stay in service until 2016 at the earliest. Immediately after taking office, Putin began to pursue new nuclear research programs and initiated a missile force expansion resulting in the development of new missiles that Cohen and Volk argue are capable of defeating U.S.-built missile defense technology.
The latest accord agreed to by Russia and the U.S. concerning the reduction of nuclear weaponry is the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions, signed on May 24, 2002. The Washington-based Arms Control Association (ACA) described the treaty as a modest step, saying in a media advisory on the day of signing, “The new treaty does not significantly alter the number of existing nuclear delivery systems and therefore only marginally affects the residual nuclear potential of the United States and Russia.” Therefore, although Russia is technically not in breach of the agreement by keeping its missiles intact and deployable, the ACA advised Russian policymakers in 2002 to begin the process of dismantling much of the country’s stock. “If Russia mirrors the U.S. policy of warehousing, rather than eliminating, these deadly weapon systems, Moscow will be adding warheads to a vast and insecure nuclear weapons complex, which already poses a significant proliferation risk,” wrote ACA Research Director Wade Boese.
Berman asserted that the reason Putin refuses to dismantle many of Russia’s missiles is part economy, and part strategy. “Russia needs to keep these missiles up and running so it can preserve its strategic deterrent, particularly in the face of initiatives like the Bush administration’s missile defense effort,” Berman said. Although Putin asserts that this policy is in no way a threat to the U.S., Cohen and Volk note that Russian military doctrine has become increasingly hostile and offensive, and is “clearly aimed at repelling the kind of air-space attack that only the U.S. and its allies are capable of staging.”
A fourth point of contention between the U.S. and Russia is the political pressure and military threats Russia continues to employ in dealings with its former satellite states. Many scholars believe that the Soviet “big brother syndrome” is alive and well in Russia and plays a significant role in Russia’s relations with other smaller surrounding countries. “Old habits die hard,” Berman said. “Putin is intent on reasserting Russia’s influence in its former holdings in Central Asia and the Caucasus. The type of policies he’s been enacting suggest that a neo-imperial policy is here to stay.” Russia maintains military bases and units in the Trans-Dniester (Moldova), Georgia (Abkhazia and Adjara), Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. Additionally, the majority of Russian experts advising the government on U.S.-Russian relations hold that the U.S. “will never go away, we are witnessing a long-term American presence in Central Asia, and possibly, in the Caucasus,” one expert, who wished to remain anonymous, told Cohen and Volk. This kind of speculation fuels the nationalists advising Putin and others in the Russian government to adopt a more confrontational stance with the U.S.
Dr. Fiona Hill, an expert with the Brookings Institution’s Eurasia Foundation, said that Russian relations with its former satellite states are a major issue for the U.S. “Russia wants the U.S. to pull its forces out of the area, and the U.S. wants Russia to stop exerting force in Georgia and other surrounding states. Russian leadership would like the U.S. to let Russia deal with the region on its own,” Hill said. In her testimony to the House Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia in July 2003, Hill stated that “harsh government repression of dissent” is more of a threat to Russia and its surrounding states than radical Islamic groups that have developed within or migrated to the area.
Cohen and Volk argue that many Russian policymakers want to revive the “enemy image” of America. Berman asserted that for some policymakers in Moscow, the image of the U.S. as the “main enemy” has never quite faded, but he also said that others in Moscow are more open to a pragmatic, cooperative relationship with Washington.
By JINSA Editorial Assistant Jessica Altschul.
ping!
sniff? sniff?
Interesting. I sure there is a plausible explanation from the Putin worshipers.
Alouette, my monitor is going all screwy when it comes to colors...can't make the bearded guy out...who is that???
Well, what else would one expect?
In other news: famous Internet inventor Al Gore is now working on the "wheel" invention. The work on inventing fire is tentatively scheduled for 2005, the sources say.
Story at Eleven?
Since -
Since - The media in this nation is working against the nation(and this election nonsense proves that) - I see nothing wrong with what Russia is doing
Since - our government is full of people working against this nation(and this election nonsense proves that) - I see nothing wrong with what Russia is doing
Americans - and mostly under the Socialist Democrats - were led to believe that if we gutted our weapons stockpile - the other nations would do the same and the world would become a better place. Well - the reverse has happened. Because of Clinton and his policy of giving dangerous tech. to the world - and because of Carter's appeasement policy - We now face a more dangerous world -
I would not believe anything the "Left" reported - and certainly not in an article aimed at dividing nations that might otherwise becomes friends - in the nick of time - to fight together against Terrorist. Lord only knows France and Germany and other nations aren't interested in doing the correct thing for the world - they've shown that already -
Plus - by putting out article after article - the Left appear to be bending over backwards to achieve their goal -
I don't trust KGB agents - including Putin.
"I would not believe anything the "Left" reported"
JINSA is a conservative national security think tank.
"Interesting. I sure there is a plausible explanation from the Putin worshipers."
Haven't you heard, the ex-KGB colonel is one of our best friends.
And - ?
You don't think people on the "Left" couldn't have gotten in - like they have everyplace else -? Even in our government and media - both of which they(the Left) are out to destroy -
Hello, I wrote this article - and I am NOT a "leftist infiltrator." I worked for JINSA for three years as an editorial assistant and analyst. The point I was trying to get acorss by writing this article is that we have been giving Russia too much leeway for too long. They are obviously retreating back to their pre-"democracy" policies, and I agree with Senator McCain, who urges the U.S. to take a stand and begin pressuring Putin and other Russian officials to adopt more democratic policies.
Anyone who opposes a more free government and media in Russia hopefully can see that the road Putin is heading toward is the one to Stalinism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.