Russia Profile
February 13, 2008
Russia Votes Democrat in American Elections
Republican Presidents in the United States Have Been Easier to Deal With
Comment by Georgy Bovt
Although it won’t really matter who wins the presidential election in the United States, the victory of Senator John can be perceived as the “worst case scenario.” Such is probably the near-Kremlin circle’s first impression of the course of the election campaign in the United States. It was expressed by the Duma deputy Sergey Markov, one of the most “orthodox” political analysts. He believes that a Democratic victory will put a stop to the “mad policy” of allocating money for the country’s increased military power instead of funding education, social programs or “peace tendencies” on our planet.
These statements reflect the essence of American politics in a rather simplified manner, and they wouldn’t even be worth mentioning if the Russian political elite did not really adopt the idea of President McCain being a threat to Russia. As a matter of fact, I believe that John McCain being the President of the United States is by no means the “worst case scenario.”
John McCain is notorious for a number of harsh statements about Russia and its government. He proposed banishing Russia from the “Big Eight” as punishment for its “abandonment” of democracy. Mocking the famous quote from George Bush Junior, who had once “peeped” into the soul of Vladimir Putin (during their meeting in Ljubljana that set off the fairly good personal relationship between the two presidents), he stated that in Putin’s eyes he saw just three letters – KGB, and nothing else. It was McCain who, during the course of the current campaign, managed to casually “take a stab” at Russia when answering a journalist’s question, “Are you planning to go to war with Russia?” by replying: “It depends on how it’s going to behave”.
Given such “baggage” it will likely be hard to count on having a normal relationship with the Russian president.
However, first of all, by the time the new American president is elected (if it indeed will be McCain), the Russian president will no longer be Putin, so McCain won’t get to see the same three letters. Secondly, Russian political analysts (probably in parallel with Russia’s political practice) always tend to greatly exaggerate the personification level of America’s foreign policy. McCain, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will be able to slightly alter its hues. But at the same time it has to be kept in mind that there is an enormous apparatus, a huge informational and analytical machine behind developing America’s foreign policy (as well as the internal one). This machine is largely driven by objective factors rather than subjective emotions and preferences, which means that there are many more premises for cooperation with today’s Russia than for confrontation with it. The lack of a similar structure in Russia (and the current Ministry of Foreign Affairs can in no way be acknowledged as a “brain center” for developing foreign policy strategy and tactics), and the transfer of activity to the presidential administration, to the level of one or two people closest to the president, are what makes Russia’s foreign policy extremely personified, when one person decides everything. But not America’s. Given these circumstances, the combination of the soft and cultured Dmitry Medvedev with John McCain or with Obama might turn out to be less quarrelsome than if the energetic and less “streamlined” Putin remained president.
It should be noted that following World War II Moscow has always had much better relationships with Republican presidents, although they were the more feared ones in the beginning. However, these fears served as an additional guarantee of precaution (for both sides), “who knows what these hotheads might do in the spur of the moment, it’s better to be careful with them”. This is characteristic of the relationship between Nikita Khrushchev and Dwight Eisenhower (Khrushchev’s first visit to the United States took place during the republican general’s second term), and also of the one between Brezhnev and Nixon, when all the fundamental documents limiting the arms race were signed. This is how Gorbachev and Reagan’s relationship was when the Cold War ended, and then, during Bush Senior’s rule, the relations between Russia and the United States became unprecedentedly warm.
Republican presidents have always been easier for Moscow. Democratic presidents were always more complicated. Primarily because Democratic presidents have always been inclined to perceive the world in a much more complicated light, and were also on a permanent “American” mission. And this mission had been much more complicated than just “exporting democracy on bayonets” the way the straightforward Bush Junior tried to practice it. The Soviet leaders (followed by Yeltsin, whose reign coincided with the presidency of the Democrat Clinton), were neither mentally nor, what’s more important, institutionally prepared for such multi-sided collaboration. For example, the Democrat Carter was too much of a moralist for them, and Bill Clinton was too sly, while it was under Clinton that America gained such technological and economic might that his successor George Bush was able to exploit for eight years to come.
Sergey Markov believes that the “most preferable” candidate for Russia would be Barack Obama, because he is capable of completely renewing American politics and restoring hope for the future, “no matter how illusory they might turn out to be.”
By the way, it is not accidental that Barack Obama is so often compared with John Kennedy in the United States. The latter also tried to revive the American dream in its widest sense. It was in the name of this dream and of spreading these ideals all over the world that the American Peace Corps was formed (today such methods of expanding influence are called “soft power”) and the American lunar studies program was launched. And also the war in Vietnam began. Precisely during the Democrat Kennedy’s presidency the United States and the USSR came closest to the possibility of nuclear war aimed at complete mutual annihilation during the Cuban Missile Crisis. ******** #31 Sean's Russia Blog www.seansrussiablog.org February 12, 2008 “Tolya, my colleagues. Didn’t I make myself clear?” Winston Churchill was never without an insightful quip about Russia. In 1939, he made his famous Russia is “a mystery wrapped inside an enigma.” Just when you think he couldn’t top that, at some point he made this apt observation: “Watching clans in Russia is like watching dogs fighting under a carpet.” If Winston was right, and I think he was, where is Michael Vick when you need him? For almost five months now, the Kremlin dogs have been clawing and biting each other under the carpet. The Western media has been slow to tune into the show except for a few notable exceptions. The first is the Eurasian Daily Monitor’s Jonas Bernstein. His veterinarian skills are unmatched when it concerns the machinations of the Russia’s top dogs tumbling under the rug. His articles have been essential in discerning who are the pits and who are the poodles, and who is lockjawed around whose neck. The Moscow Times and the eXile have also been on the cutting edge of the siloviki’s clan tiffs. The Times‘ retrospective on Putin’s Legacy is a must read. Nabi Abdullaev’s “How Putin Put the Kremlin on Top” chronicles the reinstitution of the “power vertical.” Francesca Mereu’s “Putin Made Good on Promise to FSB” charts the return of the FSB to their rightful place at the top of the Russian hierarchy. When put together, you get a glimpse at how Putin and his boyars made Russia the fighting pit for their under carpet wrangling. The eXile also has its finger on the pulse or maybe it’s better to say a ringside seat at the pit. Mark Ames’ “Siloviki Clan War Heats Up” and “The Kremlin’s Clan Warfare: The Putin Era Ends” are good places to go for determining the betting line. Thankfully, more and more Western news outlets are starting to tune into the fractious spectacle. Take Gregory Feifer’s report “Russian Clans Drive Kremlin Infighting” on NPR as a good recent example. Things appear to have been quiet in the Clan War since the holidays. One strange episode was an alleged recording of a bathhouse conversation between Putin, Anatoli Chubais, and Aleksey Kudrin (I’ve provided a .pdf copy of the whole Forum.msk article and recording transcript here. The translation is from JRL#23). A transcript of the recording was first published on the liberal site Ezhednevyi zhurnal. It was quickly denounced as a Sechin clan forgery and EZh was accused of being their tool in a black PR campaign against Putin. I don’t know how you can think that the recording isn’t anything but a forgery. I love the “your gang . . .” followed by “Tolya, my colleagues. Didn’t I make myself clear.” Take the following as an example: Chubais: Let me remind you that seven years ago we reached a general understanding. We would help you carry out liberal reforms. We advanced a counter-condition. Your gang… Putin: Colleagues! Chubais: …Colleagues, of course, would keep the whole administrative system under control. Right? Putin: Right, of course. And isn’t it true, everything was really well thought out?! Chubais: Are you kidding?! Let’s total it up. The reforms went to the devil, the state machinery is in ruins, and your gang… Putin: Tolya (nickname for Anatoliy), my colleagues. Didn’t I make myself clear? Chubais: I’m sorry, Vladimir Vladimirovich, your colleagues. After all, it is clear to everyone that they are colleagues. Putin: Don’t be conceited, just go on. Chubais: Well then, so your colleagues stole so much that no one in this country… Putin: In our country, Tolya, in our country! What kind of Anglicisms they are! Lousy liberals! Agents of influence! Chubais: Of course, in our country… no one in our country has ever dreamed of such pillage, so vast and massive. Putin: Aren’t you exaggerating? Chubais: And how much, in your opinion, am I exaggerating? Putin: Okay, not so much, go on. Chubais: Vladimir Vladimirovich, the scale of their assets and their illegality is substantial. They need to be protected, they need to protect themselves. And there is the professional deformation: they know no restrictions on their means. Surely you know about this? Putin: What are you hinting at? Chubais: Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say, surely you understand what I have in mind? Putin: Let’s suppose so. Go on. Chubais: Up to this point, we have helped you help us preserve the balance… Putin: But you blurted it out. And I realized it! Chubais: I was figuring on that. Now the balance is upset. You know about that better than others. And they have gotten out from under your control. This may well be a feeble attempt to get at Putin. But I suspect the real struggle will take place after the March elections. Will Medvedev move against Sechin and send him to an early political retirement? What role will Putin play as Dmitiri’s consigliere? At any rate, there only a few more weeks left of calm before the possible storm.