Putin protecting his mafia-siloviki clan

Like any mafia Don who protects those closest to him, Putin's response to the sanctions imposed upon Russia and his clique by the EU, US, and Japan is to:

• Create a law, proposed by the deputy of the United Russia faction Vladimir Ponevezhsky, to amend current legislation so that the individuals, whose property was arrested under "unjust judicial acts," could apply to the Russian court asking to be compensated for seized property. 
• Create a law to seize the assets of foreign states and foreign entities (read "foreign individuals and companies")
• To receive compensation from foreign states for the seized property of Russian citizens 

The heading of Kenneth Rapoza's article says it all:
   
"Russia's Latest Retaliation Against Sanctions Puts American Multinationals In Crosshairs"

In other words, Putin is wanting to 'compensate' members of his closest clique whose assets have been confiscated under the rules of the sanctions that have been imposed upon Russia and his 'oligarch' supporters closest to him. A recent case in point of the seizure of assets by an EU country is that of Italy, where the authorities have seized 30 m Euros worth of assets from Arkady Rotenberg, a very close ally of Putin from his days in St. Petersburg.

Arkady Rotenberg

As Tomas Hirst  reveals, Boris Nemtsov, in response to these proposed laws, has written on Facebook

"What is [the benefit of] a strongman's (Putin's) friendship? It's when you have 4 villas, apartments and a hotel seized in Italy and your accomplice in the Kremlin immediately introduces a bill for damages from the Russian budget." 

                                       (click subtitles for an English translation in fullscreen)
In other words, Putin's  created 'oligarch clique' want to be compensated by the Russian taxpayer from whom they stole their money in the first place. 

Yet, as Hirst points out, "Given Russia's parlous economic position — GDP grew only 0.8% this year — the concept of using state funds to bail out multimillionaire businessmen may be received poorly in the country."(my emphasis)

But will the ordinary Russian taxpayers even mildly grumble about these oligarchs being compensated by the State with their money, given the fact the nearly ALL the Russian media is really the propaganda tool of Putin? Furthermore, that the latest Russian budget, " ..[has] allocated 57 percent of its spending to social causes, chiefly supporting Putin's main electorate — pensioners and state sector employees.", as reported in the Moscow Times.(Sep. 18 2014)

Are these laws proposed by Putin really to stave off  dissent among the business elite, who may begin to challenge his actions against the West and against Ukraine? As John Lough points out,

"The ‘economic bloc’ in the government has found itself marginalized with decision-making left to an increasingly narrow group around Putin." (my emphasis)

John Lough. Associate Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Programme, Chatham House

And it is precisely this narrow group of decision-makers (read "Putin's clan") that have been targeted by sanctions, and that is now ensuring that these sanctions will not impoverish them.

At the same time "Putin has deliberately chosen to make an example of Yevtushenkov and send a signal to keep big business on its toes. The core message is that there are new rules of the game and no one is untouchable." (John Lough) (my emphasis) One can almost hear the ghostly echo of Khodorkovsky rattling about in his prison cell.

Meanwhile, in Ukraine, the battle for Donetsk airport continues, nothwithstanding that 'ceasefire' clause of the agreed Minsk (read "Putin's") Protocol of 5th September 2014.
 

Is it any wonder that, " Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko told German Chancellor Angela Merkel -- his closest and most powerful European ally -- on Monday that Russia was ignoring the terms of a September 5 peace pact the sides sealed in the Belarussian capital Minsk", as reported by Dmitry Zaks. Is this breaking of the ceasefire by Russia's proxies in eastern Ukraine Putin's ploy to undermine " the ballot for October 26 parliamentary polls once the registration deadline passes on Tuesday night (30 Sept 2014)."? (Dmitry Zaks)

Poroshenko's "highly controversial decision to promise temporary self-rule for territories under rebel control in exchange for their renouncement of independence has dominated political debate in the run-up to the parliamentary polls". (Dmitry Zaks) (my emphasis) One can only hope that he will  secure a majority in the 450-seat chamber though, as Dmitry Zaks points out, "his chances of forging a coalition that could help him make peace with Russia while securing a military and economic alliance with the West at present look somewhat remote."

Meanwhile, as new evidence is emerging that Russian troops are active in eastern Ukraine, Obama and the EU are focusing their efforts on takling ISIS in the Middle East.

Moscow's plan to decoy the West

As  Eglė Samoškaitė points out, "Moscow seems to be making [an] effort to patch up its relations with the West after a fall-out over Ukraine by trying to refocus attention away from Eastern Europe and onto the Middle East. Experts say, however, that the trick might not work." On the other hand, it may work. And this is the big danger for Ukraine. 

(to be continued)

Putin's 'one trick' energy economy and the coming of winter

Anne Applebaum, in a talk given at the LSE (London School of Economics) on 28 January 2013, pointed out that Russia is a 'one-trick' energy exporting economy, much like e.g. Saudi Arabia.

As Danny Vinik, amongst many others, shows; Russia's total energy exports constitutes more than two-thirds of their total exports.

It is this singular and incontrovertible fact, together with the critical dependence of many EU countries on Russian gas imports, that gives so many in the EU cause for concern about not ruffling the feathers of the increasingly paranoid Putin, in particular over his invasion of Ukraine. Putin has no other alternative but to use a plethora of different economic, re-armament, and military threats against the Ukraine and the EU in particular purely as a means of disguising his major concern should  the income from Russia's energy exports begin to fall due to the start of fracking in the EU. As Bjorn Lomberg points out,"Fracking could free Europe from Putin" Is it therefore any wonder that Putin is throwing a lot of money into an anti-fracking campaign? As Robert Zubrin points out:

"... it should come as no surprise that the Putin regime is pulling out all the stops in fomenting the global anti-fracking movement, with Europe as its central target. Leading the propaganda campaign has been RT News, Russia’s state-owned television network, which broadcasts around the world in English and other languages."

Putin against fracking

And supporting Putin's anti-fracking propaganda in the EU Parliament are 50 Green MEP's.
 

With Putin's 'friends' like this in the EU Parliament, does Ukraine need enemies

With all of this in mind, and re-visiting that deal brokered after hours of acrimonious negotiations in Berlin by Günther H. Oettinger, the European Union energy commissioner, on 26th September, and that set out the following:

• Ukraine to pay 'over the odds' ($385 per 1,000 cubic meters) for it's gas from Russia when compared to the rest of the EU.
• Ukraine to pay 'upfront' for its gas. Gazprom will ensure that at least 5 billion cubic meters of gas are supplied to Ukraine from October to March which must be prepaid before delivery.
•  The EU to guarantee a loan from the International Monetary Fund to help Ukraine meet its debt payments. The deal foresees an initial installment of $2 billion due by the end of October, with the outstanding $1.1 billion due by the end of December,

is it any wonder that Poroshenko has backed off from this EU-backed Russian deal? Andriy Kobolev, [Ukraine's] Naftogaz state energy firm chief, has also firmly stated that "No final decision was adopted. Not a single document was signed -- period".

Günther H. Oettinger, the European Union energy commissioner

Why, therefore, are so many EU politicians blinded by the fact that Putin is more dependent on Russia's sale of gas to the EU than the EU is dependent on Russia supplying it with gas? Russia's threat to cut off gas supplies to Europe would seriously cripple the Russian economy. The European public may experience a rather cold winter in their homes, but the warmth that Russian homes will enjoy over this winter will be coupled with higher inflation, a drastic fall in their standard of living, and food shortages. Add to this Putin's threat to the Russian people to cut off their access to the internet, a threat that will particularly be hard felt by the younger generation, and you have a volatile mixture that could lead either to a 'Russian Spring' or to fully fledged Russian fascistic militarism. The stage has already been set up by Putin for the latter scenario. But even here Putin is taking a big gamble. Already he is causing Russia to be viewed negatively by the rest of the global community, not only by the EU and the US. The credibility of Russia in relation to the war in Ukraine has taken a rather steep dive at the UN. Russia may be able to use conspiracies as a "major tool" with which to manage its own people, but this will simply not work on the rest of the global community.

The question why so many EU countries are still afraid to bite the bullet and seriously confront Putin and his actions in Ukraine still remains.Why is only Ukrainian President Poroshenko standing up to Putin? Only last Sunday  he said that Kiev’s EU Association Agreement will come into force in full in November despite an agreement between Moscow, Brussels and Kiev to postpone full implementation until January 2016. This has rather angered Putin, forcing him into even more apopletic threats.“Russia is guided by the agreements reached at the three party talks, but at the same time is ready to defend its position. Russia remains committed to these agreements, but is ready to respond if [a party to the deal acts] in breach of previously reached agreements,” Dmitry Peskov (Putin's spokesman) said on 29 September 2014.

Dmitry Peskov. Putin's spokesman

Is this latest threat of Putin yet another indicator that the wobbling Russian economy could soon be teetering on the precipice of a headlong nosedive into recession? All those nest eggs that were stored away when the Russian economy was in full flow, and oil and gas money simply swamped the government coffers to overflowing, are already beginning to disappear thanks, in particular, to the implementation of the latest EU and US (and Japanese) sanctions against Russia.

(to be continued)

Putin, Ukraine, and the coming of Winter 2014

As if almost to underscore the palpable fear that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has of Putin; three days after a meeting in Budapest between himself and Alexei Miller, the head of Russian gas giant Gazprom, Orban indefinetly suspended delivering gas to neighbouring Ukraine.

Alexei Miller                           Victor Orban

Ukrainian state gas firm Naftogaz confirmed the stoppage, saying it was "unexpected and unexplained ".

And what was the excuse of Orban for cutting off gas supplies to Ukraine? He had " ..acted to raise the flow of gas to Hungary, due to an expected increase in demand." Really? Even though Ukraine has been receiving gas from Hungary, Poland and Slovakia in the face of Russia cutting off supplies to it in June in a dispute over unpaid bills? 

If Hungary, who imports LESS gas from Russia than most other EU countries, is so quick to buckle under to Putin, now that winter is just around the corner what about all those other EU countries that are so dependent on Russian gas?

At the same time, a deal has been brokered yesterday in Berlin whereby Russia will continue to supply Ukraine with gas despite the ongoing dispute between them about Ukraine's outstanding bills, as reported by Melissa Eddy and Alison Smale.(25/9/2014). 

  Whilst this deal, essentially brokered by Angela Merkel, may seem to be in everyone's favour, it should be borne in mind that:

• Ukraine is paying 'over the odds' ($385 per 1,000 cubic meters) for it's gas from Russia when compared to the rest of the EU.
• Ukraine has been forced to pay 'upfront' for its gas. Gazprom will ensure that at least 5 billion cubic meters of gas are supplied to Ukraine from October to March which must be prepaid before delivery.
•  The EU would guarantee a loan from the International Monetary Fund to help Ukraine meet its debt payments. The deal foresees an initial installment of $2 billion due by the end of October, with the outstanding $1.1 billion due by the end of December.

In light of this deal, why has Hungary suddenly and indefinetly stopped supplying Ukraine with gas? Is it because the Hungarian neo-Nazi party Jobbik, which got 20% of the vote in the April election of this year securing 47 out of 199 seats in the Hungarian parliament, had to be taken into account by Victor Orban in his dealings with Putin? 

Gabor Vona. Leader of Hungarian neo-Nazi party Jobikk

Even more disconcerting, Neo-Nazi and right-wing parties across the EU have made spectacular gains in the 2014 EU elections, as reported by Charlotte McDonald-Gibson and John Lichfield. 

French Right Wing                           Greek Right Wing

That these Neo-Nazi and extreme right-wing supporters of Putin are influencing the decisions of the EU about Ukraine in favour of Putin really goes without question.

Strangely,  Lavrov is now arguing (September 26, 2014) that the crisis in Ukraine is, in fact, a reflection of the contradictions within the Euro-Atlantic region viz. NATO. This is a mere regurgitation of an argument that Putin presented on 10th September 2014 to a meeting in the Kremlin. Lavrov's 'diplomatic' argument comes on the heels of Russia's low credibility on Ukraine at the UN meeting addressed by Obama and Yatsenyuk  on 24th September. Essentially Lavrov is trying to push the Minsk Protocol of 5th September 2014 which the following participants attended viz.

• Swiss diplomat and OSCE representative Heidi Tagliavini
• Former president of Ukraine and Ukrainian representative Leonid Kuchma
• Russian Ambassador to Ukraine and Russian representative Mikhail Zurabov
• Russia's proxies in Eastern Ukraine DPR and LPR leadersAleksandr Zakharchenko and Ihor Plotnytskiv

No current EU representative, nor the current Ukrainian President, nor the current Ukrainian Prime Minister attended this meeting.

With the exception of Heidi Tagliavini (a Swiss diplomat), this was a meeting rubber-stamping Putin's agenda and attended by those who feared him (Kuchma), depended on his patronage (Mikhail Zurabov), and his Russian criminal cohorts disguised as 'leaders' in eastern Ukraine (Zakharchenko and Plotyntskiv).

 

Kuchma and the Yanukovych-Yushchenko 

Presidential elections of 2004

What this clip demonstrates, more than anything else, is that Putin carries a grudge for a very long time. He simply cannot forgive the people of Ukraine for daring to overthrow his candidate, Yanukovych, in the 2004 presidential elections in Ukraine. Even more galling for him is that in 2014 they did it for a second time! As Kuchma says in the clip, " ... Putin is a hard man!"

Notice, too, Putin's remarks that, "We should not let it become international practice for such disputes i.e. about the rigging of the 2004 elections by  his man Yanukovych, to be settled by mobs on the streets ..." And what about his criminal mobs that started the current war in eastern Ukraine?

And now the 'diplomatic' Lavrov has the galling effrontery to try and put the blame on NATO, the EU, and the US, for what Putin has started. Did NATO, the EU, and the US also precipitate Putin's invasion of Crimea? What has happened to the, "I'm protecting Russians" legitimation of Russia's invasion of Ukraine that has been forced down the throats of the unsuspecting Russian people?

This rather shrill Anti-Americanism of Putin, that has been steadily ramping up since the start of this Russian-Ukraine war, has now turned into a paranoid avalanche of 'conspiracy theories'. Even one of Putin's staunchest supporters, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, current vice-chairman of the Russian State Duma, recently announced on Russia's most popular TV prime-time talk show 'Time Will Tell' that;

• Russia is the target of a global plot orchestrated by the United States and involving fighters from the self-styled Islamic State (IS) and nationalist Ukrainian troops
• "America is everywhere, the West is everywhere, Nato is everywhere. Everything is organised against Russia,"
•  He also suggests that if the current stand-off with the West continues, the Kremlin will turn more and more to conspiracy theory as a "major tool" with which to manage its own people.

This 'major tool' is currently been handled rather deftly on the international front by Russia's Foreign Minister Lavrov with his recent regurgitation of Putin's paranoia about NATO and the EU.
 
(to be continued)
  

Does Putin's latest threat hide his fears?

It has now emerged that Putin has demanded from the EU a re-opening of the, "... recently-ratified trade pact with Ukraine and has threatened “immediate and appropriate retaliatory measures" if Kyiv moves to implement any parts of the deal ...", as reported yesterday (24th September 2014) by Peter Spiegel in Brussels. (cf. also Russia demands changes to Ukraine-EU trade deal).  

With a copy of the Putin demands sent to the EU and also sent to Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin, Ulyukayev said Russia could treat even a partial implementation of the treaty as a trigger to react. In a recent letter to the EU trade commissioner, seen by Reuters on Thursday, Economy Minister Alexei Ulyukayev said Moscow wanted three-way negotiations to amend the EU's treaty with Kiev, which Russia says will hurt its own economy.
  
"We reiterate our intention to adjust, if necessary, the preferential regime between Russia and Ukraine in order to minimise negative problems related to the change in the trading regime between Ukraine and the EU, not excluding other ways to protect the Russian economy." (my emphasis)

Russia unhappy with the EU-Ukraine trade pact. 

Even more interesting, José Manuel Barroso, current President of the European Commission, won't rule out changes to the EU-Ukraine Pact if Kiev makes such a request.

José Manuel Barroso

This threat of Putin, besides his 'nuclear' threat, his threat about being able to invade Kiev in 2 weeks, pricking at the air space of Canada, the US, and Sweden with his jet fighters and nuclear bombers, and pointing out to all and sundry that he also has his sights on certain former Eastern European countries who are now a part of the EU; is this merely the bullying display of a 'paper tiger', to use a phrase coined by Mao Tse Tung?

Furthermore, what is rather significant about this latest threat is that Moscow is worried that the EU-Ukraine economic pact will mean that Ukraine will [have to] bar imports from Russia that fail to meet EU quality standards. This specific condition will also block any attempt by Russian businessmen to circumvent EU quality control by trying to export to the EU via dummy companies that they may set up in Ukraine, since Ukraine itself will also have to conform to EU quality standards.

Putin's threat against Ukraine's current trade with Russia rings rather hollow since Ukraine now has the whole of the EU to trade with at a preferrential level. It is this which rather sticks in the craw of both Putin and Medvedev. After all, Medvedev is now checking Russian supermarket prices to ensure that they are not overcharging Russian consumers in the face of the current sanctions, as reported in the Moscow Times on September 1st.

Medvedev checking supermarket prices

Furthermore, his threat about ending overflight rights of Western airlines means that Russia will lose $500 million in overflight rights payments, as pointed out by Tim Worstall on 9th September. As he says, ".... it’s not entirely obvious that Russia has a proper grasp on who gets harmed by trade sanctions."

Even more bizarre is Putin's total misunderstanding that "Reopening the legal texts [of the EU-Ukraine Trade Pact] would pose problems for the EU's multinational procedures and pose serious diplomatic obstacles". Yet some " ... EU officials say that there is room for compromise with Moscow on Ukrainian trade; Russian exporters could have a soft route to compliance with EU quality and other standards in Ukraine so that they only need meet the requirements for selling goods into the EU-Ukraine free-trade area over a very long time." This suggestion has not gone down well with some EU members, notably Poland.

"Diplomats from one eastern EU member said they were angry that De Gucht (European Commissioner for Trade)  had agreed to the delay without consulting them and felt that Germany and other major powers had given in to pressure from Russia.

Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, a Polish member of the European Parliament which ratified the accord simultaneously with Kiev, voiced a similar view.
"Putting the EU-Ukraine trade deal on ice is the wrong decision," he said. "It would delay the necessary reforms and set a bad precedent."

Once again Germany, amongst others, (Is that the voice of Matteo Renzi that I hear?) is vacillating even though, as Steven Hill so correctly pointed out on 23/09/2014," Chancellor Angela Merkel’s foreign policy of engagement towards Russia, and her personal relationship with President Vladimir Putin, [now] lie in tatters.".

Angela Merkel and Putin

Furthermore, " ... [H]er approach toward Russia appears to indicate a doctrinaire mindset that sees doubling down on failed policies as a sign of strength and resoluteness. While all is quiet at the moment on the Eastern front, Chancellor Merkel does not appear to have a Plan B." Nor, it would seem, does she have the stomach to simply confront her businessmen who are still sucking at the teats of the corrupt Russian cow.

De Gucht

Controversially, the Flemish De Gucht has been accused of Insider Trading (2008) when he was a minister in the federal government of Belgium, anti-Semitism for his remarks about Jews in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the September 2010 Washington talks, and racism by the Congolese Information Minister, Henri Mova Sakanyi, for his remarks about the government of the Demcratic Republic of Congo. And as recently as April 2012, he attracted criticism for a groundless statement as EU Trade Commissioner that Ireland was "already out of recession". He somewhat reminds me of the many European right-wing organizations, individuals, and political parties who are fervently and quietly in support of Putin.

Taking all of this into account, can we say that Putin and his current 'economic' threat against Ukraine is merely those of a "paper tiger"? Will the EU buckle under this threat and give in to Moscow, who now wants three-way negotiations between the Ukraine, Russia, and the EU, to amend the EU's treaty with Kiev simply because it will hurt Russia's economy? Is Tim Worstall correct in saying that, ".... it’s not entirely obvious that Russia has a proper grasp on who gets harmed by trade sanctions," or the Ukraine-EU Trade Treaty for that matter? Or is the Putin mafiosi clan beginning to fray at the edges.

Consider the rather childish and undiplomatic response of the Russia’s ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, towards the speech given by Arseny Yatsenyuk, the Ukrainian Prime Minister, to the General Assembly at the UN yesterday, 24th September,  viz. 

• “Mr. Putin, you can win a battle against the troops, but you will never defeat the people – united Ukrainian nation,” the PM said. Churkin was puzzled by that. “It’s strange that his speech ended up in a melodramatic call to the Russian president,” or
•  “It’s strange that Ukraine’s PM, instead of solving the multiple problems of his country, which is nearing economic collapse, has come to New York to speak in front of a half-empty General Assembly room,” How many half-empty General Assembly's has Churkin spoken to? 

Vitaly Churkin in the UN General Assembly

Is this an indicator that the weight of the bald-faced lies that Putin and his propaganda machine has had to invent regarding the direct Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine has become too much to bear, even for Vitaly Churkin? And what does Sergey Lavrov, that dyed-in-the-wool Soviet-educated Foreign Minister of Russia, that stickler for diplomatic language and protocol, have to say about his colleague's childish remarks? His silence is positively deafening.

Sergey Lavrov

Maybe because Churkin had to listen to what Obama, in his speech, had to say about Putin and Ukraine  prior to the address of Arseny Yatsenyuk viz.

"If we lift our eyes beyond our borders - if we think globally and act co-operatively - we can shape the course of this century as our predecessors shaped the post-World War Two age."
Sharply critical of Russian actions in Ukraine (my emphasis), Mr Obama said it was an example of what happens when countries do not respect international laws and norms. (my emphasis)
He called on Russian President Vladimir Putin to follow "the path of diplomacy and peace and the ideals this institution is designed to uphold"

that Churkin had to respond to Yatsenyuk's speech as he did. Thus, in light of his respone to the speech of Yatsenyuk, one could almost say to Churkin in relation to the speech of Obama ,"Cat caught your tongue?"

And yet .... and yet .... "...many [EU] governments are wary of antagonizing Russia, the bloc's leading energy supplier, and fear more Russian trade retaliation. Russia has already responded to EU and U.S. sanctions by banning imports of most food from the West", as reported by Adrian Croft and Robin Emmot. (Thu Sep 25, 2014 ) In fact, as they point out, "...Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, have been openly scornful of sanctions and these countries are likely to push for an easing of sanctions next week." How ironic! Has the Hungarian Prime Minister forgotten about 1956, when Russian troops and tanks poured into Budapest to put down a revolt by the Hungarian people? Or has the Slovak Prime Minister forgotten about 1968? 
 

Viktor Orban                                    Robert Fico

Or does it all boil down to gas and oil, now that winter is but 2 months away.


(to be continued)

Putin upping the confrontation stakes. Who will blink first.

Today, the 24th September 2014, merely seems to be confirming the fact that Putin's single mindedness in re-creating Novorossiya, irrespective of its consequences upon the Russian and Ukrainian peoples, knows no bounds.

Putin, in a  letter to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko dated 17th September, and seen by Robin Emmott of Reuters only yesterday, "... warned that even changing national legislation to prepare for the EU-Ukraine trade deal, known as the association agreement, would trigger an immediate response from Moscow."

Putin's anger 17th September

This is not the only threat emanating from the Kremlin. Of late the nuclear status of Russia has also been bandied about by Putin. On 1st September 2014, Esther Tanquintic-Misa reported that:

"Mr Putin warned Ukraine's defenders to lay easy on meddling with their affairs, lest Russia be triggered to unleash its most important weapon.
"I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations," the Russian president said. "This is a reality, not just words."
Speaking at a youth forum, Mr Putin said Moscow does not have intentions to go into "large-scale conflicts." But a report by state-run Itar-Tass quoted him telling the same audience that Russia is "strengthening our nuclear deterrence forces and our armed forces" to make them more efficient and modernised."
Thus, "it is better not to come against Russia."

Meanwhile  in SOCHI, on September 19 (RIA Novosti) Medvedev tacitly supported Putin's nuclear stance by bemoaning the fact that,"European security has been a concern for NATO, who has been increasing its presence near Russia's borders, citing the need to better protect its allies, and suspending entirely its cooperation with Moscow." In light of Putin's nuclear threats, what does he expect NATO to do? Sit back and let Putin simply roll all over them? 

This nuclear threat of Putin has more recently tested both Canada and the US, as Russian fighter jets skirted close to their airspace on September 21st, and were confronted by Canadian and US fighter jets.

Russian Fighter Jets

Even more sinister, on the same day the Swedish Foreign Ministry said two Russian military aircraft had crossed into Swedish air space south of the Baltic Sea island of Oland. The ministry called it a "serious violation", to the extent that Sweden has said it has summoned the Russian ambassador over the incident.

All of this also has to be viewed against the backdrop of Russia building a military town in the Arctic, as reported by Ria Novosti on 8th September 2014, together with Putin boasting on the 10th September about the new developments of Russia's nuclear arsenal, as reported by Darya Korsunskaya.

Modular blocks used for the construction of Russia's military base in the Arctic have been delivered to Wrangel Island and Cape Schmidt.

In light of Putin's nuclear posturing,  Paul Roderick Gregory, in his article of the 23rd September 2014, correctly poses the following questions:

"Are the world’s two largest nuclear powers moving towards a missile-crisis-like confrontation because Russia is achieving or failing to achieve its objectives in Southeast Ukraine? Are Europe and the U.S. really hoping that a peace deal entered into by a weakened Ukraine will end Putin’s empire-restoration dream? Or would only effective Ukrainian resistance that denies Putin his Novorossiya head off such a catastrophe?". He further comments that," Merkel and Obama regrettably seem to be pushing Ukraine towards an unfavorable peace that gives Putin a permanently destabilized Ukraine blocked from the European Union and NATO. And the only price he [Putin] has had to pay is sanctions, which he expects to be lifted after a decent time has passed."

Meanwhile, at home, Putin is once again cracking the whip over his subservient Russian 'oligarchs'. One of Russias oldest billionaires has been whipped into toeing the Kremlin line over Ukraine. Like the false charges against Khodorkovsky before him, Vladimir Evtushenkov, who has always been loyal to the Putin government, has been falsely charged with money-laundering and placed under house arrest on the 7th September 2014.

Vladimir Evtushenkov

As Henry Meyer and Stephen Bierman report, "The arrest of one of Russia’s oldest billionaires is sending shivers down the backs of business owners already reeling from U.S. and European sanctions over President Vladimir Putin’s policies in Ukraine." But why should Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, argue that this arrest is “categorically against any comparisons” with the Yukos [Khodorkovsky] affair. And then threatens by phone that, “Any attempt to politicize the situation is not justified and not acceptable”?

Rosneft criminally stole Yungansk from Khodorkovsky on 22 December 2004 by purchasing it from Baikal Finance Group. The Baikal Finance Group was created on December 6, 2004 just two weeks before the Yuganskneftegaz auction, with a share capital of 10,000 rubles ($358 US). It was registered in a building that houses a vodka bar, a mobile phone shop, a tour operator agency and the offices of several small local companies, but no office of the Baikal Finance Group.

Yet, despite its obscurity, Baikal Finance Group was able to secure a credit of US $1.7 bn from the state-owned Sberbank savings bank as a down-payment for participating in the auction. Here is the interesting bit. On December 21, 2004, Russian presidentVladimir Putin admitted that he knew the owners of Baikal Finance Group. Putin did not disclose their names but noted that they were individuals with ‘many years of experience in the energy business’. And now, in 2014, Rosneft is once again trying to criminally gain control of Bashneft, the oil company of, you guessed it, Vladimir Evtushenkov. It would seem that Rosneft, like Putin (remember that ring of Mr. Kraft), is somewhat light-fingered. After all, Rosneft is currently trying to 'steal' $42 bn from the Russian Pensioners Pot.

Enter Khodorkovsky, who argues that "Rosneft, the world’s biggest traded oil company by output, needs Bashneft to prop up flagging production at older [oil] fields." This emergence of Khodorkovsky back onto the Russian political scene has been followed up by his launch of Open Russia on September 20th 2014.

Khodorkovsky September 2014

The aim of Open Russia is to unite pro-European Russians against Vladimir Putin,  as reported in The Guardian on Sunday 21 September 2014. “We are not simply Russian Europeans. We are patriots. And true patriots even during pitch-dark reactionary times should serve their country and their people.” Khodorkovsky’s supporters expressed hopes his project would raise awareness among Russians and help them see through state propaganda. These are, indeed, admirable aims.

However if, as he states, " Our immediate tasks: to provide a communications platform, to get the work of the expert community up and running, to create an educational module, and to get organisational contacts going between all interested groups.", what effect will Putin's cutting off of the Russian people from the internet have on his 'communications platform'? As the Guardian reported on Friday 19 September 2014, President Vladimir Putin will convene a meeting of his security council on Monday [21st September 2014].

It will discuss what steps Moscow might take to disconnect Russian citizens from the web "in an emergency", the Vedomosti newspaper reported. The goal would be to strengthen Russia's sovereignty in cyberspace. The proposals could also bring the domain .ru under state control, it suggested. All that is needed for Putin to say that an 'emergency' exists and that would rather put paid to Khodorkovsky's 'communication platform' from reaching the Russian people. For Putin, an 'emergency' is defined as military action or foreign-sponsored protests, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Friday, confirming earlier speculation in Russian media.

Russia is upping regulation of the Internet, which it sees as a Western-controlled security threat

What all of this indicates is that Putin seems to be stealthily placing Russia on a war footing. And in his sights he not only has Ukraine but also NATO and the EU. The little prods that he is also giving the US and Canada might not be as little as they first seemed. Indeed, he seems to be following that time-worn strategy of re-armament during times of economic crisis. That Russia is undergoing an economic crisis is even been admitted by Anatoly Chubais, the mastermind of Russia’s first privatization program in the 1990s, who recently stated that, "....Evtushenkov’s arrest will deepen the economic malaise at a time when Russia’s already “on the brink of recession and stagnation."

And so the re-armament of Russia begins, as reported by Prensa Latina News Agency,

"Moscow, Sep 10 (Prensa Latina) Russian President Vladimir Putin is leading a conference today to define the country''s weapons program for 2016 to 2025, confirmed the president''s press service. Sergei Ivanov, head of the Presidential Administration, the Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozin, Putin's adviser Andrey Belousov, federal ministers and representatives of the Defense Ministry have been invited to the meeting, according to the Kremlin." But where is Medvedev?

(to be continued)

Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself

On Sunday 21st September, thousands of people marched in Moscow and other Russian cities, including St. Petersburg,  protesting Russia's involvement in the Ukrainian conflict.  People carrying Russian and Ukrainian flags chanted "No to war!" and "Stop lying!" Even more interesting was the chant, “The junta is in the Kremlin, not Kiev.” The latter refers to Russia’s contention that the ousting of Ukraine’s former Russia-friendly president was a coup.

A large column of protesters waving both Russian and Ukrainian flags marched in central Moscow
on September 21st.

Does this demonstration give us a hint that Putin has been given enough rope by the EU and the US, and has now begun to hang himself? Even more significant is that the right-wing Russian supporters of Putin could only muster a rather small demonstration supporting the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Supporters of separatists in Ukraine held their own smaller rally in Moscow, 
where they ripped a Ukrainian flag

Let 's now view some of the critical events that, so far, have taken place in September.

• 05 September: Russian rebels in Ukraine say ceasefire has broken down
• 12 September: 4th round of sanctions come into effect against Russia
• 16 September:  Alina Kabayeva, 31, will become chairman of the board of National Media Group, which is controlled by Yury Kovalchuk.
•  17 September: Lavrov says "new" ceasefire in Ukraine holding after Russia helps the rebels with weapons and more than 1,000 Russian troops on 29th August. 
• 18 September: Russia moves 4000 troops to Crimea ahead of Ukraine-US meeting
• 18 September: “If I wanted, in two days I could have Russian troops not only in Kiev, but also in Riga, Vilnius, Tallinn, Warsaw and Bucharest.”says Russian President Vladimir Putin
• 19 September: Minsk agreement on new measures to maintain ceasefire
•  21 September: Anti-war demonstrations in Moscow and other Russian cities
•  21 September: Leaked transcripts giving lie to Vladimir Putin’s claims that Russia isn’t fighting in Ukraine. Up to 80 Russian troops were killed in a skirmish there last month, according to information released by an opposition politician
• 21 September: Military victory for Ukraine out of the question says Poroshenko, because of the level of support the rebels received, and are still receiving, from Russia. 

To try and understand the Anti-war demonstrations of 21st September, we have to consider the time-frame for obtaining permission to hold a demonstration in Russia, and the conditions under which such a demonstration can be held. This demonstration was given the go-ahead by Moscow city authorities on the 11th September. Notice that this permission was given before the 4th round of sanctions came into effect!

The Russian opposition vs the State

More importantly, Mayorov outlined the purpose of the demonstration as, " .... to express and form public opinion about violations of human rights, laws, the constitution and international commitments of the Russian Federation and international legal norms and to demand their observation."

Given that Putin himself regards those who protest against himself and his kleptocratic Kremlin cabal as "enemies of the state", how could this demonstration, at this time, have been given the go-ahead?  On Wednesday, March 5, 2014, as several hundred Russian protesters chanted outside the imposing Defense Ministry, "No war! Hands off Ukraine", burly riot police quickly moved in to make arrests, dragging one young man with a “No war!” placard from the steps of a nearby chapel. Yet none of this happened during the recent Anti-war demonstration.

Moscow protestor in front of police September 22, 2014

Contrast this image with one from the Maidan protest.

Maidan protestor

Why are the Russian police so restrained? Is it because the EU is considering partially lifting its sanctions imposed on Russia sometime next week i.e. 30th September? Or is it because Putin's German sidekick, Angela Merkel, has begun to buckle in her stand on sanctions against Russia due to the fact that Europe's gas supply is closely linked with Ukraine's "and winter is nearing, so time is pressing ... for a solution to the long-running gas dispute between Russia and Ukraine ahead of a meeting of the two countries' energy ministers this week. ." Also, has Alina Kabayeva become Putin's 'ears and eyes' in the National Media Group of Kovaklchuk, watching Putin's back, so to speak, due to tensions against him arising within his kleptocratic clique?

Putin and Kabayeva in September 2014

In other words, has the boast of Putin that sanctions will not cripple the Russian economy taken something of a nosedive as banks in Russia, especially VTB, begin to feel the effects of the latest round of sanctions? Even Rosneft is now seeking help from state funds that would otherwise have come from western money. It has asked the government for $42 billion support from a fund earmarked for Russian pensions to help it weather the sanctions.Try to imagine any EU country, or the US, dipping its fingers into a pot of money earmarked for its pensioners. Yet without any moral conscience this is being considered in Putin's Russia. Are the Russian pensioners aware of this? Or will Alina Kabayeva, in her new role in the Russian media, ensure that this possible theft from Russia's pensioners is hidden from the Russian people. Even more sinister, is Gazprom on the verge of swallowing Rosneft?

And yet .... and yet .... thanks no doubt in large measure to Angela Merkel, the EU is considering partially (fully?) lifting the sanctions that have been imposed upon Russia for its military invasion of Ukraine, throwing in Crimea for good measure and, possibly, also parts of eastern Ukraine. The ghost of  Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia on 16 March 1939 is now hovering over Ukraine, except that the jackboots are now been worn by German businessmen in support of Putin's military jackboots. There is, truly, nothing new under the sun.

German businessmen over Ukraine

(to be continued)

Has Putin been victorious in Ukraine?

On September 16th, the Ukrainian Rada voted to "[allow] the removal of government officials from their posts".

"About one million civil servants of different kinds will come under this law, including the whole cabinet of ministers, the interior ministry, the intelligence services, the prosecutor's office," Mr Yatseniuk said in a televised cabinet meeting.

Mr Yatseniuk said the government, police and judiciary would be "cleansed"

This process is known as "lustration" i.e. a policy that seeks to cleanse a new regime from the remnants of the past. The process of lustration involves screening new officials (elected or appointed) for involvement in the former regime and sets some consequences if they are found to have been involved. These consequences can range from publicizing information about collaboration in the previous regime, through dismissal and banning from holding certain offices.What this adopted policy of cleansing means is that Putin sympathisers, who especially dominated in the Ukrainian intelligence services and the Ukrainian prosecutot's office, can be dismissed from their posts and, more importantly, banned from holding certain offices.

Poroshenko addressing US Congress Sept.18th 2014

Added to this adopted policy of "lustration", Poroshenko is in Washington today (18th September 2014)  "with a simple request: more economic and military aid for a nation that is reeling from an insurgency in the east." Notice here that Poroshenko is requesting more "military" aid. In other words, the rather tenuous current ceasefire, together with the amnesty and self-rule granted to the rebels yesterday could, for Putin, merely be a "lull" before he orders a full military invasion, possibly in November, of Ukraine. After all, recently Putin boasted to Poroshenko that " ...he could send troops not only to Kiev but also to several EU capitals in Eastern Europe "within two days".

[He] allegedly mentioned the Baltic cities of Riga, Vilnius and Tallinn, as well as Warsaw (Poland) and Bucharest (Romania). These countries are Nato military alliance members." Poroshenko then passed on Putin's comments to EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso at the weekend in Kiev. So far only Poland has publicly stated that it will supply Ukraine with arms if it wishes to buy any from Poland. What about other EU countries?

What all of this tells us is that notwithstanding that the Ukrainian Rada has ratified giving Luhansk and Donetsk powers of self-rule, Poroshenko is wary that Putin will try to do to these two eastern Ukrainian "enclaves" what he did to the Georgian areas of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008 viz. recognise them as independent states. These so-called 'independent' states are recognised by only Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Nauru. The rest of the international community consider both these 'states' to be under Russian millitary occupation. Looking at the Minsk deal (20th September 2014) reached by Ukraine, Russia, eastern separatists and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE); this seems precisely what Russia wants viz. to maintain a "frozen conflict" between itself and Ukraine.

Key points of this Minsk memorandum include:

• To pull heavy weaponry 15km by each side from the line of contact, creating a 30km security zone
• To ban offensive operations
• To ban flights by combat aircraft over the security zone
• To set up an OSCE monitoring mission
• To withdraw all foreign mercenaries from the conflict zone

Points 2 and 5 are of particular interest. Does it refer to BOTH Russia AND Ukraine? Similarly, if Donetsk and Luhansk are given self-rule, will Ukrainian soldiers also be regarded as "foreign mercenaries" by these entities? Notice that none of these points even mention having a buffer zone along the border between Russia and Ukraine. In effect, the current areas controlled by Russia's proxies in Donetsk and Luhansk will become an integral part of Russia.

(to be continued)