DOCSLIB.ORG

Crisis Averted in Ukraine? by Claire Mills

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Crisis Averted in Ukraine? by Claire Mills BRIEFING PAPER Number 9205, 26 April 2021 Crisis averted in Ukraine? By Claire Mills Since March 2021 Russia has been building up significant military forces in Crimea and along the borders of Eastern Ukraine, prompting fears of further military action in the region. On 22 April 2021 the Kremlin announced, however, that those additional troops, which it said had been deployed on exercise, would be withdrawn by 1 May 2021. Russia’s justification for the build-up has been questioned and it remains to be seen whether Russia will fully implement its commitment to withdrawal. 1. What has been happening in Ukraine since 2014? Russian-backed separatists took control of Crimea and parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of eastern Ukraine (the Donbas) in 2014. The 2014 and 2015 Minsk agreements remain the basis for the negotiation of a political solution to the conflict. In July 2020 additional measures were agreed by the Minsk Trilateral Contact Group, intended to strengthen, and ensure compliance with, the ceasefire. However, Russia has continued to integrate Crimea within Russian territory and to destabilise Ukraine. The Donbas is mainly Russian speaking and many of the population now have Russian passports after a concerted campaign by the Kremlin since 2019 to issue passports to Ukrainian nationals living in the separatist controlled areas of Donetsk and Luhansk.1 1 Since 2019 a reported 650,000 Russian passports have been issued, resulting in what some analysts have called a “passport protectorate”. See for example, “Russian passports: Putin’s secret weapon in the war against Ukraine”, Atlantic Council, 13 April 2021 www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 Crisis averted in Ukraine? Source: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, April 2019 Fighting between Russian-supported separatists and Ukrainian government forces has continued in the Donbas, even though it has rarely been in the headlines. Russia describes the Donbas as a “domestic conflict” for Ukraine, despite the widespread allegations that it is behind the separatist unrest. The Kremlin has consistently denied its involvement, suggesting that any Russian fighters in eastern Ukraine are “volunteers”.2 Many people doubt whether Russian President Vladimir Putin genuinely wants to resolve the conflict, however, preferring to set up a ‘frozen conflict’ where the breakaway regions are maintained and supported by Russia, weakening the Kiev government and giving Russia strong leverage over its actions, including any future attempts to formalise Ukraine’s relationship with the EU and NATO. More recently President Putin said that Russia will defend Russian citizens abroad if they are seen to be at risk. Box 1: Further reading • Eastern Ukraine – dashed hopes?, House of Commons Library, June 2020 • Cool conflicts in Russia’s neighbourhood, House of Commons Library, January 2019 • Ukraine – summary of developments in 2015 and 2016, House of Commons Library, January 2016 • Ukraine: towards a frozen conflict?, House of Commons Library, September 2014 2. On the precipice of a new crisis? The Minsk Agreements, including the additional measures agreed in July 2020, remain largely unimplemented by both sides. Tensions have been rising over the last few months in the Donbas region between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian government forces. Ceasefire violations have become increasingly commonplace and casualties are on the rise. In 2021, 27 Ukrainian military personnel have been killed thus far. Several commentators have suggested that the imposition of sanctions early in 2021 on pro-Russian Ukrainian politician and businessman Viktor Medvedchuk, and the ban 2 “Ukraine conflict: Moscow could ‘defend’ Russia-backed rebels”, BBC News Online, 9 April 2021 3 Commons Library Briefing, 26 April 2021 imposed on three pro-Russian TV stations, have played a part in the deterioration of relations. As Sarah Lain of RUSI has observed: This deterioration was perhaps inevitable due to the lack of progress in the political and security dimensions of the peace process. Simply put, there has been little incentive for things to remain calm.3 2.1 The build-up of Russian military forces There have been growing fears that Russia is planning further military action in the region following several weeks of a military build-up in Crimea and along the eastern Ukrainian border.4 Russia has amassed an estimated 100,000 troops on the ground, a greater number than the force involved in the annexation of Crimea in 2014.5 Airborne troops, reconnaissance assets, infantry fighting vehicles, air defence systems, attack helicopters and a significant number of fast jet aircraft, including Su-30, have recently been stationed in Crimea and elsewhere in the region. Unconfirmed reports of Iskander short-range missiles being deployed to the region have been circulating in the media. The Ukrainian government has also asserted that Russia has been prepositioning fuel, ammunition and supplies in separatist held areas in the Donbas.6 Russia’s Black Sea fleet has also been reinforced with the addition of a number of small vessels, including landing craft and artillery boats, from Russia’s Caspian Sea Flotilla. On 14 April 2021 the Russian Ministry of Defence reported that the Black Sea Fleet, together with naval aviation and helicopters, would be taking part in live-fire exercises. The Russian government has since confirmed that the exercises will continue until the end of October 2021, with several sections of the Black Sea being closed to foreign vessels during this time. The Ukrainian Government has accused Russia of contravening the right to freedom of navigation under international law and described the move as an attempt to “usurp the sovereign rights of Ukraine as a coastal state”.7 By unilaterally closing access to the eastern Black Sea and the Sea of Azov through the Kerch Strait, it further prevents the Ukrainian navy from entering the Sea of Azov and accessing its ports. 3 “Rising tensions in Ukraine are not necessarily a prelude to renewed “hot” war, RUSI Commentary, 29 March 2021 4 The movement of such extensive military forces has been undertaken without prior notification, in contravention of the principles set out in the OSCE’s Helsinki Final Act, to which Russia is a signatory. 5 Estimates suggest 90,000 Russian military personnel were deployed in support of local pro-Russian separatist groups in the Donbas region in 2014/15 (“Russian forces in Ukraine, RUSI Briefing Paper, March 2015 6 “Russian troop build-up continues on Ukrainian border”, Jane’s Defence Weekly, 14 April 2021 7 “Ukraine accuses Russia of shutting off Black Sea access, harassing ships”, The Moscow Times, 16 April 2021 4 Crisis averted in Ukraine? Source: Wikipedia, User:NormanEinstein - Own work In anticipation of the exercises, four Russian Ropucha-class landing ships recently joined the Black Sea Fleet from Russia’s Northern and Baltic Fleets, marking what has been regarded as “the largest concentration of Russian amphibious forces in recent history”.8 2.2 What has Russia said? The Russian Government’s official line is that the movement of military personnel and assets has been related to ongoing training exercises. At the beginning of April 2021 President Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, called the movement of troops an “internal affair” and that they were “not threatening anyone”.9 A week later the Russian Defence Minister, Sergei Shoigu, accused NATO of provocative actions by amassing troops and equipment on Russia’s Baltic borders and in the Black Sea region and suggested that the movement of Russian forces was to test combat readiness in response to “threatening behaviour” by the Alliance.10 Separately the Russian Government also accused Ukraine of preparing an offensive of its own to re-take the Donbas and stated that Russia would be forced to come to the defence of Russian citizens in eastern Ukraine if the fighting escalated.11 2.3 International reaction The build-up comes at a low point in the West’s relations with Russia. The last few years have been dominated by sanctions, tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats and widespread condemnation of Russia for its destabilising actions on the international stage, the detention of opposition leader Alexei Navalny and subsequent crackdown on protesters. 8 “Update: Russia amasses amphibious forces in Black Sea”, Jane’s Navy International, 20 April 2021 9 “Russia’s internal troop movements should not concern other states, Kremlin states”, TASS Russian News Agency, 1 April 2021 10 “Russia says troop build up near Ukraine is a response to NATO”, The Independent, 13 April 2021 11 “Donbas escalation would be beginning of the end for Ukraine”, The Moscow Times, 8 April 2021 5 Commons Library Briefing, 26 April 2021 Since the annexation of Crimea in 2014 the West has been unanimous in its support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and, as a result, a number of countries have supplied military assistance to the country’s armed forces. This is examined in: • Military assistance to Ukraine, House of Commons Library, April 2021 Reacting to recent events the members of the G7 issued a statement calling on Russia to de-escalate tensions in line with its international obligations. It went on to state: we reaffirm our unwavering support for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders. We support Ukraine’s posture of restraint. We underline our strong appreciation and continued support for France’s and Germany’s efforts through the Normandy Process to secure the full implementation of the Minsk agreements, which is the only way forward for a lasting political solution to the conflict. We call on all sides to engage constructively in the Trilateral Contact Group on the OSCE’s proposals to confirm and consolidate the ceasefire.12 Those sentiments were echoed by the NATO Secretary General during a press conference with the US Defense Secretary and US Secretary of State on 14 April 2021: This is the biggest massing of Russian troops since the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Online Russia, Today
    Online Russia, today. How is Russia Today framing the events of the Ukrainian crisis of 2013 and what this framing says about the Russian regime’s legitimation strategies? The case of the Russian-language online platform of RT Margarita Kurdalanova 24th of June 2016 Graduate School of Social Sciences Authoritarianism in a Global Age Adele Del Sordi Dr. Andrey Demidov This page intentionally left blank Word count: 14 886 1 Table of Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1.Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4 2.Literature Review .................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Legitimacy and legitimation ............................................................................................. 5 2.2. Legitimation in authoritarian regimes ............................................................................. 7 2.3 Media and authoritarianism .............................................................................................. 9 2.4 Propaganda and information warfare ............................................................................. 11 3.Case study ............................................................................................................................. 13 3.1 The Russian-Ukrainian conflict of 2013 .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Launching an Effective Anti- Corruption Court: Lessons from Ukraine
    U4 Practice Insight 2021:1 Launching an effective anti- corruption court: Lessons from Ukraine By David Vaughn and Olha Nikolaieva Series editor: Sofie Arjon Schütte Disclaimer All views in this text are the author(s)’, and may differ from the U4 partner agencies’ policies. Partner agencies German Corporation for International Cooperation – GIZ German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development – BMZ Global Affairs Canada Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark / Danish International Development Assistance – Danida Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency – Sida Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation – SDC The Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation – Norad UK Aid – Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office About U4 U4 is a team of anti-corruption advisers working to share research and evidence to help international development actors get sustainable results. The work involves dialogue, publications, online training, workshops, helpdesk, and innovation. U4 is a permanent centre at the Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI) in Norway. CMI is a non-profit, multi-disciplinary research institute with social scientists specialising in development studies. www.U4.no [email protected] Cover photo High Anti-Corruption Court (CC copyrighted) Keywords justice sector - anti-corruption courts - judges - vetting - Ukraine - Eastern Europe Publication type U4 Practice Insight Creative commons This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) Ukraine’s High Anti-Corruption Court was created in response to immense public demand to hold government officials and judges accountable for corruption. Making the court operational, however, required more than adopting legislation. It meant selecting and preparing judges, recruiting qualified court personnel, and setting up administrative and organisational structures, including courthouse facilities, security, IT infrastructure, and communications systems.
    [Show full text]
  • The Russia You Never Met
    The Russia You Never Met MATT BIVENS AND JONAS BERNSTEIN fter staggering to reelection in summer 1996, President Boris Yeltsin A announced what had long been obvious: that he had a bad heart and needed surgery. Then he disappeared from view, leaving his prime minister, Viktor Cher- nomyrdin, and his chief of staff, Anatoly Chubais, to mind the Kremlin. For the next few months, Russians would tune in the morning news to learn if the presi- dent was still alive. Evenings they would tune in Chubais and Chernomyrdin to hear about a national emergency—no one was paying their taxes. Summer turned to autumn, but as Yeltsin’s by-pass operation approached, strange things began to happen. Chubais and Chernomyrdin suddenly announced the creation of a new body, the Cheka, to help the government collect taxes. In Lenin’s day, the Cheka was the secret police force—the forerunner of the KGB— that, among other things, forcibly wrested food and money from the peasantry and drove some of them into collective farms or concentration camps. Chubais made no apologies, saying that he had chosen such a historically weighted name to communicate the seriousness of the tax emergency.1 Western governments nod- ded their collective heads in solemn agreement. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank both confirmed that Russia was experiencing a tax collec- tion emergency and insisted that serious steps be taken.2 Never mind that the Russian government had been granting enormous tax breaks to the politically connected, including billions to Chernomyrdin’s favorite, Gazprom, the natural gas monopoly,3 and around $1 billion to Chubais’s favorite, Uneximbank,4 never mind the horrendous corruption that had been bleeding the treasury dry for years, or the nihilistic and pointless (and expensive) destruction of Chechnya.
    [Show full text]
  • Ukrainian Armed Forces
    June 23, 2021 Ukrainian Armed Forces In 2014, the Ukrainian military, which observers noted had lower (around 2.5% of GDP). Ukraine’s 2021 defense been weakened by years of neglect and underfunding, faced budget is 117.6 billion hryvnia ($4.2 billion), 127 million Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s Crimea region and hryvnia ($4.6 million) less than 2020’s budget. invasion of eastern Ukraine. Since that time, the Ukrainian Additionally, Ukraine’s defense budget allocations are split armed forces have made considerable improvements; they between funds necessary to maintain the military and funds have undertaken efforts to adopt NATO standards and to support its ambitious reform program. received significant NATO and U.S. assistance. Many of these reforms began out of the experience of defending Ukraine inherited a sprawling defense industry from the against Russian aggression. Reforms range from the tactical Soviet Union, producing a wide range of products, to the strategic levels and include both political measures including tanks and armored vehicles, aircraft, radars and (e.g., increasing transparency, countering corruption, and electronics, missiles, and ships. Defense conglomerate ensuring civilian control over the military) and military Ukroboronprom oversees the defense industry, which reforms (e.g., modernizing equipment, reforming command comprises over 130 state-run companies. In recent years, and control, and increasing professionalization). Ukrainian officials have made reforming Ukroboronprom and increasing transparency key goals, including passing a Significant hurdles remain, however, and the reform new law, On Defense Procurement, in July 2020 to process is complicated by Ukraine’s Soviet legacy, the implement NATO standards in defense procurement.
    [Show full text]
  • Development Partnership Forum Joint Statement 8 October 2020
    Development Partnership Forum Joint Statement 8 October 2020 Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal and Heads of Missions and Heads of Cooperation met 8 October 2020, in Kyiv, Ukraine, in the framework of the Development Partnership Forum, which was established as a part of the three-tier coordination mechanism between the Government of Ukraine (GOU) and the international Development Partners (DPs) in line with the Paris Declaration on Improving the Effectiveness of External Assistance. This meeting builds upon the successful Development Partnership Forum held in January 2020 and the Ukraine Reform Conferences (URC) held in London, Copenhagen, and Toronto. It is also a key milestone in preparing for the next URC expected to be held in Vilnius, Lithuania in 2021. Development cooperation takes place in Ukraine across multiple sectors and areas and is being provided by 24 countries, IFIs and the EU with total grant assistance of roughly USD 5.7 billion since the Revolution of Dignity. Cooperation between Ukraine and DPs is based on common interests and shared values and aims to support national reforms promoting an inclusive, independent, democratic, prosperous, and healthy Ukraine united around core European values. Both sides underscored that their shared aim is to achieve a tangible impact for all Ukrainian citizens, including its most vulnerable, based on the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The GOU continues to be committed to reforms aimed at restoring economic growth and bringing the country closer to the European future. Development Partners stand ready to support the GOU to realise the potential of the Ukrainian economy through systemic changes to improve its business climate, increase investment attractiveness and to develop trade and human capital.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins of United Russia and the Putin Presidency: the Role of Contingency in Party-System Development
    The Origins of United Russia and the Putin Presidency: The Role of Contingency in Party-System Development HENRY E. HALE ocial science has generated an enormous amount of literature on the origins S of political party systems. In explaining the particular constellation of parties present in a given country, almost all theoretical work stresses the importance of systemic, structural, or deeply-rooted historical factors.1 While the development of social science theory certainly benefits from the focus on such enduring influ- ences, a smaller set of literature indicates that we must not lose sight of the crit- ical role that chance plays in politics.2 The same is true for the origins of politi- cal party systems. This claim is illustrated by the case of the United Russia Party, which burst onto the political scene with a strong second-place showing in the late 1999 elec- tions to Russia’s parliament (Duma), and then won a stunning majority in the 2003 elections. Most accounts have treated United Russia as simply the next in a succession of Kremlin-based “parties of power,” including Russia’s Choice (1993) and Our Home is Russia (1995), both groomed from the start primarily to win large delegations that provide support for the president to pass legislation.3 The present analysis, focusing on United Russia’s origin as the Unity Bloc in 1999, casts the party in a somewhat different light. When we train our attention on the party’s beginnings rather than on what it wound up becoming, we find that Unity was a profoundly different animal from Our Home and Russia’s Choice.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Government Factsheet Ukraine
    Digital Government Factsheet 2019 Ukraine ISA2 Digital Government Factsheets - Ukraine Table of Contents Country Profile .................................................................................................. 3 Digital Government Highlights ............................................................................. 5 Digital Government Political Communications ........................................................ 6 Digital Government Legislation ............................................................................ 9 Digital Government Governance .........................................................................13 Digital Government Infrastructure ......................................................................16 Digital Government Services for Citizens .............................................................21 Digital Government Services for Businesses .........................................................24 2 2 Digital Government Factsheets - Ukraine Country Profile Basic data Population: 42 122 657 (2019) GDP at market prices: UAH 1 048 023 (2019) GDP per inhabitant in PPS (Purchasing Power Standard EU 28=100): N/A GDP growth rate: 3.4% (IV quarter of 2018 compared to IV quarter of 2017) Inflation rate: 9.8%* (2018) General government gross debt (Percentage of GDP): 63%* General government deficit/surplus (Percentage of GDP): 1.66%* Area: 603 628 km2 Capital city: Kyiv Official EU language: Ukrainian Currency: UAH 2 Source: UkrStat, *Ukrainian Ministry of Finance 3 Digital Government Factsheets
    [Show full text]
  • Ukrainian Armed Forces
    June 23, 2021 Ukrainian Armed Forces In 2014, the Ukrainian military, which observers noted had lower (around 2.5% of GDP). Ukraine’s 2021 defense been weakened by years of neglect and underfunding, faced budget is 117.6 billion hryvnia ($4.2 billion), 127 million Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s Crimea region and hryvnia ($4.6 million) less than 2020’s budget. invasion of eastern Ukraine. Since that time, the Ukrainian Additionally, Ukraine’s defense budget allocations are split armed forces have made considerable improvements; they between funds necessary to maintain the military and funds have undertaken efforts to adopt NATO standards and to support its ambitious reform program. received significant NATO and U.S. assistance. Many of these reforms began out of the experience of defending Ukraine inherited a sprawling defense industry from the against Russian aggression. Reforms range from the tactical Soviet Union, producing a wide range of products, to the strategic levels and include both political measures including tanks and armored vehicles, aircraft, radars and (e.g., increasing transparency, countering corruption, and electronics, missiles, and ships. Defense conglomerate ensuring civilian control over the military) and military Ukroboronprom oversees the defense industry, which reforms (e.g., modernizing equipment, reforming command comprises over 130 state-run companies. In recent years, and control, and increasing professionalization). Ukrainian officials have made reforming Ukroboronprom and increasing transparency key goals, including passing a Significant hurdles remain, however, and the reform new law, On Defense Procurement, in July 2020 to process is complicated by Ukraine’s Soviet legacy, the implement NATO standards in defense procurement.
    [Show full text]
  • Treisman Silovarchs 9 10 06
    Putin’s Silovarchs Daniel Treisman October 2006, Forthcoming in Orbis, Winter 2007 In the late 1990s, many Russians believed their government had been captured by a small group of business magnates known as “the oligarchs”. The most flamboyant, Boris Berezovsky, claimed in 1996 that seven bankers controlled fifty percent of the Russian economy. Having acquired massive oil and metals enterprises in rigged privatizations, these tycoons exploited Yeltsin’s ill-health to meddle in politics and lobby their interests. Two served briefly in government. Another, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, summed up the conventional wisdom of the time in a 1997 interview: “Politics is the most lucrative field of business in Russia. And it will be that way forever.”1 A decade later, most of the original oligarchs have been tripping over each other in their haste to leave the political stage, jettisoning properties as they go. From exile in London, Berezovsky announced in February he was liquidating his last Russian assets. A 1 Quoted in Andrei Piontkovsky, “Modern-Day Rasputin,” The Moscow Times, 12 November, 1997. fellow media magnate, Vladimir Gusinsky, long ago surrendered his television station to the state-controlled gas company Gazprom and now divides his time between Israel and the US. Khodorkovsky is in a Siberian jail, serving an eight-year sentence for fraud and tax evasion. Roman Abramovich, Berezovsky’s former partner, spends much of his time in London, where he bought the Chelsea soccer club in 2003. Rather than exile him to Siberia, the Kremlin merely insists he serve as governor of the depressed Arctic outpost of Chukotka—a sign Russia’s leaders have a sense of humor, albeit of a dark kind.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia Reform Monitor No. 2389 | American Foreign Policy Council
    Russia Reform Monitor No. 2389 June 1, 2020 Matt Maldonado, Ilan I. Berman Related Categories: Democracy and Governance; Human Rights and Humanitarian Issues; Global Health; Russia; North Africa HOW RUSSIA IS HELPING LIBYA'S HAFTAR U.S. military officials and national security experts have accused Russia of fanning the flames in Libya's civil war by supplying strongman Khalifa Haftar with both warplanes and manpower while masking the origin of that assistance. The North African conflict has widened in recent months after Turkey began supporting the UN-recognized Government of National Accord in their fight against Haftar, the leader of the Russia-backed Libyan National Army. Haftar controls large swaths of eastern Libya and is trying to dislodge the GNA from the capital city, Tripoli. In addition to releasing images of what are being called disguised Russian MiG-29 warplanes and other aircraft in southern Libya, U.S. sources also claim that Wagner, a Russian mercenary outfit that has gained notoriety for its activities in Ukraine and Syria, has deployed personnel to assist Haftar and his forces. Russia also appears to be providing Haftar and his men with advanced anti-aircraft systems. When Turkish-backed Libyan forces recently captured the al-Watiyah airbase in the country's west, they discovered a disabled unit of the Pantsir-S1 anti-aircraft missile system. The Pantsir-S1, known by NATO forces as the SA-22 Greyhound, has been a staple of military forces loyal to President Bashar Assad in Syria for the past several years. The system is capable of shooting down drones, and has been a nuisance for Turkish planes over Libya.
    [Show full text]
  • AN ANALYSIS of the CRISIS in UKRAINE, and ITS THREE CONFLICTS (21 of NOVEMBER 2013, THROUGH 23 of MAY 2014)* Cristián Faundes**
    REVISTA - Bogotá (Colombia) Vol. 11 N.° 2 - Julio-diciembre 137 rev.relac.int.estrateg.segur.11(2):137-159,2016 AN ANALYSIS OF THE CRISIS IN UKRAINE, AND ITS THREE CONFLICTS (21 OF NOVEMBER 2013, THROUGH 23 OF MAY 2014)* Cristián Faundes** ABSTRACT This paper presents the results of a study of the crisis in Ukraine, guided by the following question: which is the intensity of the crisis in Ukraine between November 2013 and May 2014? The information collected for this research involves 293 events evaluated and translated into quantitative data by the author with the objective to elaborate a curve reflecting the intensity of the conflict. Considering that the situation under scrutiny involves several conflicts, Revista de one curve of intensity was not enough to follow the course of events, but three were needed to track the (2). pp.137-159. DOI: (2). pp.137-159. 11 * . This paper is the result of a research study on the Crisis in Ukraine held at the Center for Strategic Studies of the Chilean Army’s War College. Project number: CEEAG-01-2014. ** Investigador académico en temas de seguridad y defensa. Sus líneas de trabajo incluyen la teoría de conflictos y las relaciones entre los países del Cono Sur. Se ha especializado en la problemática de los recursos naturales y el estudio del agua dulce como factor de conflictos. Ha presentado sus investigaciones en congresos internacionales y cátedras de postgrado. Se desempeña como Investigador asociado en la Jefatura de Estudios de la Academia de Guerra del Ejército. Periodista, licenciado en información social.
    [Show full text]
  • The Long Arm of Vladimir Putin: How the Kremlin Uses Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties to Target Its Opposition Abroad
    The Long Arm of Vladimir Putin: How the Kremlin Uses Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties to Target its Opposition Abroad Russia Studies Centre Policy Paper No. 5 (2015) Dr Andrew Foxall The Henry Jackson Society June 2015 THE LONG ARM OF VLADIMIR PUTIN Summary Over the past 15 years, there has been – and continues to be – significant interchange between Western and Russian law-enforcement agencies, even in cases where Russia’s requests for legal assistance have been politicaLLy motivated. Though it is the Kremlin’s warfare that garners the West’s attention, its ‘lawfare’ poses just as significant a threat because it undermines the rule of law. One of the chief weapons in Russia’s ‘lawfare’ is the so-called ‘Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty’ (MLAT), a bilateral agreement that defines how countries co-operate on legal matters. TypicaLLy, the Kremlin will fabricate a criminaL case against an individual, and then request, through the MLAT system, the co-operation of Western countries in its attempts to persecute said person. Though Putin’s regime has been mounting, since 2012, an escalating campaign against opposition figures, the Kremlin’s use of ‘lawfare’ is nothing new. Long before then, Russia requested – and received – legal assistance from Western countries on a number of occasions, in its efforts to extradite opposition figures back to Russia. Western countries have complied with Russia’s requests for legal assistance in some of the most brazen and high-profile politicaLLy motivated cases in recent history, incLuding: individuals linked with Mikhail Khodorkovsky and the Yukos affair; Bill Browder and others connecteD to Hermitage Capital Management; and AnDrey Borodin and Bank of Moscow.
    [Show full text]