DOCSLIB.ORG

Medvedev Lauds U.S. Passage of New START Thursday, Dec. 23, 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Medvedev Lauds U.S. Passage of New START Thursday, Dec. 23, 2010 Global Security Newswire - Print_Friendly - http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/siteservices/print_friendly.php?... Medvedev Lauds U.S. Passage of New START Thursday, Dec. 23, 2010 Russian President Dmitry Medvedev yesterday commended the U.S. Senate for ratifying a new nuclear arms control treaty, but warned Russian lawmakers would have to assess Washington's ratification text before completing their own endorsement of the pact, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Dec. 22; Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press/Washington Post, Dec. 23). (Dec. 23) - Russian President Vladimir Medvedev, shown today, welcomed the U.S. Senate's ratification yesterday of the New START nuclear arms control pact. Lawmakers in Moscow are expected to soon endorse the treaty (Vladimir Rodionov/Getty Images). Medvedev "expressed hope that the Duma and Federation Council (Russia's upper parliament house) will be ready to examine this issue and also ratify the document," Reuters quoted spokeswoman Natalya Timakova as saying (Lidia Kelly, Reuters, Dec. 23). Russian lawmakers were set within hours to receive the Senate ratification text, RIA Novosti quoted State Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov as saying today. The lower hours of parliament might endorse ratification tomorrow "if these conditions don't change the text of the treaty," he said (see GSN, Dec. 22). The chamber would take longer if it found any alterations to the treaty's content, according to Gryzlov (RIA Novosti, Dec. 23). The treaty would enter into force following ratification in Moscow. President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed New START in April. The pact would require Russia and the United States to cap their deployed strategic nuclear warheads at 1,550, down from a limit of 2,200 required by 2012 under an earlier treaty. It also would set a ceiling of 700 deployed warhead delivery systems, with another 100 allowed in reserve. Republican senators had unsuccessfully sought direct revisions to the treaty that would have forced renegotiation of the pact with Russia. Instead, Democratic and Republican senators ultimately endorsed several amendments to the treaty's ratification resolution, including new statements on missile defense and the modernization of U.S. nuclear weapons, AP reported. The Russian legislature could ratify New START upon making its determinations about the new language, Duma International Affairs Committee Chairman Konstantin Kosachyov said. "We realize that the process shouldn't be delayed, but we intend to work in such a way that it doesn't affect the quality," Kosachyov said, adding that the Duma might either endorse the pact without qualifications or take additional time to formulate its own interpretations of the agreement (Isachenkov, Associated Press). Still, Soviet-era arms control negotiator Roland Timerbayev said New START "will now be ratified [in Russia] for sure," Reuters reported. "These resolutions are the opinions of the Duma or the Senate -- important views maybe -- but they don't affect the substance of the treaty," he said. Medvedev's United Russia party controls both houses of the Russian legislature, ensuring passage of the treaty if it retains backing from the 1 of 3 3/31/2011 12:43 PM Global Security Newswire - Print_Friendly - http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/siteservices/print_friendly.php?... nation's leadership. "If the Kremlin wants do to it as quickly as possible then it can be done in one day," though Moscow is likely to re-emphasize its right to end participation in the pact if it deemed future U.S. missile defense deployments a strategic threat, said Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of the magazine Russia in Global Affairs (Kelly, Reuters). President Obama yesterday said the pact's ratification in the United States "sends a powerful signal to the world," Agence France-Presse reported. "I'm glad the Democrats and Republicans came together to approve my top national security priority for this session of Congress," Obama told reporters. Thirteen Republican senators broke with party leadership to support ratification. The final tally was 71-26. "This is the most significant arms control agreement in nearly two decades and it will make us safer and reduce our nuclear arsenals along with Russia," Obama said. "The strong bipartisan vote in the Senate sends a powerful signal to the world that Republicans and Democrats stand together on behalf of our security" (Agence France-Presse/Straits Times, Dec. 22). Analysts, though, disagreed yesterday on the treaty's ultimate importance, the Washington Times reported. The pact in many respects resembled the nuclear weapons agreements the United States negotiated with the Soviet Union, said Henry Sokolski, who heads the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. "Part of the reason I suspect hawks and conservatives were eager to find fault with New START, even though it's a modest proposition, is because it is still of this lineage and they wanted it to be the last of its line," Sokolski said. "None of the Cold War-era arms control agreements were designed to address the problem of breakout states like North Korea or even third and fourth parties like China, India and Pakistan." "This doesn't mean we should stop doing arms control with the Russians," he said. "The real value of this agreement is that we can move on and start dealing with these other problems; if we don't, I want my money back." Arms Control Association Daryl Kimball considered the treaty a valuable accomplishment. "To say it is a relic is wrong," Kimball said. "The weapons are a relic. The United States and Russia have thousands of nuclear weapons. So long as that is the case, there is a value to having treaties that mandate further reductions through verifiable means." "It lays the foundation for further reductions of all types of weapons, strategic, nonstrategic, deployed or nondeployed. Whether further U.S.-Russian reductions are achieved through a treaty or a unilateral, reciprocal declaration remains to be seen," he said (Eli Lake, Washington Times I, Dec. 22). Heritage Foundation expert James Carafano, though, said the pact "is going to make the world a less stable place," the Wall Street Journal reported (Barnes/Bendavid, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 23). Increased Republican influence in the incoming Senate means the body is likely to take a more conservative tack on arms control matters in the future, the Christian Science Monitor quoted another analyst as saying. The party in November's midterm elections picked up six seats in the chamber and will also take control of the House. “The 2010 elections changed the political landscape,” said Clifford May, head of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a critic of the treaty. The incoming Senate is likely to stress a "reliable and modern weapons arsenal" and missile defenses, as opposed to further arsenal cuts, he said. Senator Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), a newly elected lawmaker who has already assumed office, in a recent floor statement said the administration should be “paying attention to ending the Iranian nuclear threat rather than to this agreement and its modest goals." He voted against ratification. Kimball, though, suggested lawmakers could reach increasing levels of agreement on arms control matters. "Of course it’s going to be tougher with the new Republicans coming in, but it’s also not obvious that it means everything comes to a standstill,” he said. “What I see emerging from this debate is a bipartisan consensus that believes ... further effort needs to be pursued in reducing U.S. and Russian warheads.” "Despite the opposition from what can only be called the Dr. Strangelove caucus,” Kimball said, “I think 70-plus votes (for New START) suggests the consensus is there to move forward, and I believe the administration will do just that.” Steven Pifer, head of the Brookings Institution's Arms Control Initiative, said "the treaty’s ratification will reaffirm U.S. leadership in reducing the global threat of nuclear weapons.” New START would "send a message to Iran and North Korea that the international community remains united to restrain the nuclear ambitions of countries that operate outside the law,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) said ahead of yesterday's vote (Howard LaFranchi, Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 22). Future negotiations with Russia on nonstrategic nuclear weapons curbs could pose an even greater challenge for the Obama administration than the negotiation and passage of New START, experts told the Journal. 2 of 3 3/31/2011 12:43 PM Global Security Newswire - Print_Friendly - http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/siteservices/print_friendly.php?... Verifying battlefield nuclear-bomb reductions would involve extensive audits of Russian sites and U.S. facilities in Europe that could prove anathema to Moscow and Washington alike, Council on Foreign Relations President Emeritus Leslie Gelb said. A deal on tactical nuclear weapons could still be reached, said James Miller, a high-level Defense Department official involved in negotiating New START. There is "a lot of room for reductions" of nonstrategic weapons for both countries, Miller said (Barnes/Bendavid, Wa l l S t re e t Journal). Meanwhile, New START's top U.S. negotiator said the Obama administration would pursue ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in cooperation with senators "who were not members" when the Senate rejected the pact in 1999, according to a leaked May 2009 State Department cable (see GSN, Nov. 9). "It would be hard work, but it was achievable," the Times quoted Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller as saying in the communication. Gottemoeller "noted that the U.S. voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing did not affect the confidence the United States has in its stockpiles and the overall consensus was that acceding to the CTBT probably would not put the reliability of the U.S. stockpile at risk," the document said. "There were a large number of new senators since the last time the treaty was considered, and the administration would work to educate them on the issues," the cable quoted her as saying (Bill Gertz, Washington Times II, Dec.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mexico and Russia : Mirror Images?
    Mexico and Russia : Mirror Images? NIKOLAS K. GVOSDEV D oes Mexico's past experience as a "managed democracy" have any relevante for understanding developments in contemporary Russia?' At first glance, there are important dissimilarities between Mexico and Russia. Russia is the core of a collapsed superpower, with a highly developed industrial and scientific infra- structure; Mexico is a developing nation. Russia has great power pretensions and is a major regional actor, whereas Mexico has subsisted largely in the shadow of its neighbor to the north. However, as far back as the 1940s, American journalist W. L. White suggested that Americans could better understand developments in Russia through a comparison with Mexico 2 More recently, Guillermo O'Don- nell, among others, has drawn important and useful comparisons between the countries of Latin America and Eastern Europe in their respective paths toward democracy, and Robert Leiken, in a recent Foreign Affairs article, has cited the importance of the comparison between Mexico and Russia.3 Russia and Mexico share a number of common elements in their respective political cultures. Mexico's view of itself as an "Ibero-American" fusion of Euro- pean and Indian components is echoed by the notion of Russia as a "Eurasian" society, bridging the gap between European, Islamic, and Asian civilizations. Both countries have strong authoritarian and socialist-communalist currents, which have played a major role in shaping the political culture.4 What is most striking, however, is the degree to which Russia under President Vladimir Putin appears to be moving toward the creation of a political regime of managed democracy that resembles what emerged in Mexico after the 1940s under the Partido Revolucionario Institucional, or Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI).
    [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]
  • Signature Redacted Certified By: William Fjricchio Professor of Compa Ive Media Studies Thesis Supervisor Signature Redacted Accepted By
    Manufacturing Dissent: Assessing the Methods and Impact of RT (Russia Today) by Matthew G. Graydon B.A. Film University of California, Berkeley, 2008 SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMPARATIVE MEDIA STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN COMPARATIVE MEDIA STUDIES AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JUNE 2019 C2019 Matthew G. Graydon. All rights reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. S~ri' t A Signature red acted Department of Comparative 6/ledia Studies May 10, 2019 _____Signature redacted Certified by: William fJricchio Professor of Compa ive Media Studies Thesis Supervisor Signature redacted Accepted by: MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE Professor of Comparative Media Studies _OF TECHNOLOGY Director of Graduate Studies JUN 1 12019 LIBRARIES ARCHIVES I I Manufacturing Dissent: Assessing the Methods and Impact of RT (Russia Today) by Matthew G. Graydon Submitted to the Department of Comparative Media Studies on May 10, 2019 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Comparative Media Studies ABSTRACT The state-sponsored news network RT (formerly Russia Today) was launched in 2005 as a platform for improving Russia's global image. Fourteen years later, RT has become a self- described tool for information warfare and is under increasing scrutiny from the United States government for allegedly fomenting unrest and undermining democracy. It has also grown far beyond its television roots, achieving a broad diffusion across a variety of digital platforms.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia Intelligence
    N°70 - January 31 2008 Published every two weeks / International Edition CONTENTS SPOTLIGHT P. 1-3 Politics & Government c Medvedev’s Last Battle Before Kremlin Debut SPOTLIGHT c Medvedev’s Last Battle The arrest of Semyon Mogilevich in Moscow on Jan. 23 is a considerable development on Russia’s cur- Before Kremlin Debut rent political landscape. His profile is altogether singular: linked to a crime gang known as “solntsevo” and PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS sought in the United States for money-laundering and fraud, Mogilevich lived an apparently peaceful exis- c Final Stretch for tence in Moscow in the renowned Rublyovka road residential neighborhood in which government figures « Operation Succession » and businessmen rub shoulders. In truth, however, he was involved in at least two types of business. One c Kirillov, Shestakov, was the sale of perfume and cosmetic goods through the firm Arbat Prestige, whose manager and leading Potekhin: the New St. “official” shareholder is Vladimir Nekrasov who was arrested at the same time as Mogilevich as the two left Petersburg Crew in Moscow a restaurant at which they had lunched. The charge that led to their incarceration was evading taxes worth DIPLOMACY around 1.5 million euros and involving companies linked to Arbat Prestige. c Balkans : Putin’s Gets His Revenge The other business to which Mogilevich’s name has been linked since at least 2003 concerns trading in P. 4-7 Business & Networks gas. As Russia Intelligence regularly reported in previous issues, Mogilevich was reportedly the driving force behind the creation of two commercial entities that played a leading role in gas relations between Russia, BEHIND THE SCENE Turkmenistan and Ukraine: EuralTransGaz first and then RosUkrEnergo later.
    [Show full text]
  • Computational Propaganda in Russia: the Origins of Digital Misinformation
    Working Paper No. 2017.3 Computational Propaganda in Russia: The Origins of Digital Misinformation Sergey Sanovich, New York University 1 Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Domestic Origins of Russian Foreign Digital Propaganda ......................................................................... 5 Identifying Russian Bots on Twitter .............................................................................................................. 13 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 15 Author Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ 17 About the Author ............................................................................................................................................. 17 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 18 Citation ............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Russian Chronologies July - September 2009 Dr Mark a Smith
    Research & Assessment Branch The Russian Chronologies July - September 2009 Dr Mark A Smith 09/13 RUSSIAN DOMESTIC CHRONOLOGY JULY 2009 – SEPTEMBER 2009 1 July 2009 The head of the commission for the Caucasus and first deputy speaker of the Federation Council, Aleksandr Torshin, criticises the assessment of the situation in the North Caucasus made by the human rights organization Amnesty International. 1 July 2009 President Dmitry Medvedev speaks at a state reception for graduates of military educational institutions in the Kremlin. He discusses military reform. 1 July 2009 Deputy Prime Minister Sergey Ivanov discusses with Vladimir Putin the development of seaport construction. Ivanov states: In 1998-99, of the total volume of import and export operations, 75 per cent of our cargoes were shipped through foreign ports, mostly Ukrainian and Baltic ones, and only 25 per cent through Russian ports. Now the proportion is as follows: 87 per cent of all cargoes are already shipped and processed through Russian ports, and only 13 per cent through foreign ports. I think that's fairly good dynamics, and in the foreseeable future we will completely get rid of dependence on foreign ports. This is very important from the economic point of view, and of course additional jobs. 1 July 2009 The head of the Rosnano state corporation Anatoly Chubays addresses the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs innovation policy committee. He discusses the need to develop an innovative economy in the Russian Federation. 1 July 2009 Interior Minister Rashid Nurgaliyev says that alcohol abuse or poisoning causes each fifth death in Russia.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Full Manuscript Revised 2011V2
    Regime Transition and Foreign Policy: The Case of Russia’s Approach to Central Asia (1991-2008) Glen Hazelton A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand June 2011 Abstract In 1991, Russian embarked on an ambitious regime transition to transform the country from communism to democracy. This would be a massive transformation, demanding economic, political, institutional, and social change. It was also expected that the transition would result in significant foreign policy adaptation, as Russia’s identity, direction and fundamental basis for policy-making was transformed. However, it was an unknown quantity how transition in the domestic environment would interact with foreign policy and what the nature of these changes would be. This thesis examines the relationship between regime transition and Russia’s foreign policy. It begins with an examination of literature on regime transition and the types of changes that potentially impact policy-making in a democratising state. It then moves to examining the policy environment and its impact on the contours of policy in each of the Yeltsin and Putin periods, drawing links between domestic changes and their expression in foreign policy. How these changes were expressed specifically is demonstrated through a case study of Russia’s approach to Central Asia through the Yeltsin and Putin periods. The thesis finds clearly that a domestic transitional politics was a determining factor in the nature, substance and style of Russia’s foreign relations. Under Yeltsin, sustained economic decline, contested visions of what Russia’s future should be and where its interests lay, as well as huge institutional flux, competition, an unstructured expansion of interests, conflict, and the inability to function effectively led to an environment of policy politicisation, inconsistency, and turmoil.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Russia Today: Russia's Many Revisions
    UNDERSTANDING RUSSIA TODAY: RUSSIA’S MANY REVISIONS FREDERICK W. KAGAN DECEMBER 2016 A REPORT BY THE CRITICAL THREATS PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE UNDERSTANDING RUSSIA TODAY DECEMBER 2016 About the Author Frederick W. Kagan is the Christopher DeMuth Chair and director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute. In 2009, he served in Kabul, Afghanistan, as part of General Stanley McChrystal's strategic assessment team, and he returned to Afghanistan in 2010, 2011, and 2012 to conduct research for Generals David Petraeus and John Allen. In July 2011, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen awarded him the Distinguished Public Service Award, the highest honor the Chairman can present to civilians who do not work for the Department of Defense, for his volunteer service in Afghanistan. He is coauthor of the report Defining Success in Afghanistan (AEI and the Institute for the Study of War, 2010) and author of the series of reports Choosing Victory (AEI), which recommended and monitored the US military surge in Iraq. His most recent book is Lessons for a Long War: How America Can Win on New Battlefields (AEI Press, 2010, with Thomas Donnelly). Previously an associate professor of military history at West Point, Dr. Kagan is a contributing editor at the Weekly Standard and has written for Foreign Affairs, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and other periodicals. This essay was written for an ongoing AEI project. A version of it will be published in an upcoming volume, tentatively titled The Rise of the Revisionists and edited by Dan Blumenthal and Gary Schmitt.
    [Show full text]
  • Confronting the Russian Challenge: a New Approach for the U.S
    JUNE 2019 CONFRONTING THE RUSSIAN CHALLENGE: A NEW APPROACH FOR THE U.S. Frederick W. Kagan, Nataliya Bugayova, and Jennifer Cafarella Frederick W. Kagan, Nataliya Bugayova, and Jennifer Cafarella CONFRONTING THE RUSSIAN CHALLENGE: A NEW APPROACH FOR THE U.S. Cover: SIMFEROPOL, UKRAINE - MARCH 01: Heavily-armed soldiers without identifying insignia guard the Crimean parliament building next to a sign that reads: “Crimea Russia” after taking up positions there earlier in the day on March 1, 2014 in Simferopol, Ukraine. The soldiers’ arrival comes the day after soldiers in similar uniforms stationed themselves at Simferopol International Airport and Russian soldiers occupied the airport at nearby Sevastapol in moves that are raising tensions between Russia and the new Kiev government. Crimea has a majority Russian population and armed, pro-Russian groups have occupied government buildings in Simferopol. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images) All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing or from the publisher. ©2019 by the Institute for the Study of War and the Critical Threats Project. Published in 2019 in the United States of America by the Institute for the Study of War and the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute. 1400 16th Street NW, Suite 515 | Washington, DC 20036 1789 Massachusetts Avenue, NW | Washington, DC 20036 understandingwar.org criticalthreats.org ABOUT THE INSTITUTE ISW is a non-partisan and non-profit public policy research organization.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's “Soft Power”
    RUSSIA’S “SOFT POWER” STRATEGY A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of The School of Continuing Studies and of The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Liberal Studies by Jill Dougherty, B.A. Georgetown University Washington, D.C. November 1, 2013 RUSSIA’S “SOFT POWER” STRATEGY Jill Dougherty, B.A. MALS Mentor: Angela Stent, Ph.D. ABSTRACT On October 30, 2013 the business-oriented Forbes.com put Russian President Vladimir Putin at the top of its list of “The World’s Most Powerful People,” unseating United States President Barack Obama. Forbes said its editors made the decision based on the power of the person over a large number of people, the financial resources controlled by the person, their power in multiple spheres, and the degree to which they actively use their power. Revisionist media commentary immediately followed the report, pointing out that Russia remains a regional power, that its economy, while improving, still ranks fifth in the world, significantly trailing those of the United States and China. The ranking also appeared to be, at least partially, a reaction to Russia’s skillful shift in diplomacy on the Syrian conflict, by which it proposed a plan to destroy the Assad regime’s chemical weapons. Others noted that Forbes is a conservative publication, and part of its editors’ motivation might have been the desire to criticize a Democratic President. It was, nevertheless, a stunning turn-about for Russia’s President, an indication of how quickly evaluations of a leader and his or her country can shift, based on their perceived influence.
    [Show full text]
  • FACTSHEET-Whoisvladimirputin
    FACT SHEET Who Is Vladimir Putin? Key Events, Facts, and Quotes Compiled by Joel C. Rosenberg February 2018 Key Events & Military Actions • October 7, 1952—Vladimir Putin was born in Leningrad. • July 28, 1983—Putin marries Lyudmila Shkrebneva. • 1975 to 1991—Putin works as an intelligence operative of the KGB, rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel. • July 1998—Putin appointed head of the FSB (successor to the KGB). • August 9, 1999—Putin appointed prime minister of Russia. • September 23, 1999—“Putin orders bombing raids against the Chechen capital Grozny followed by a full-scale land offensive. Within months Russian troops retake Chechnya and install a loyal administration. Putin’s popularity rockets.” The Russian military nearly destroys Grozny, a city of 400,000 residents, after unconfirmed allegations of Chechens terrorizing Russian cities. • December 31, 1999—Putin appointed by Boris Yeltsin to serve as president. • March 26, 2000—Putin elected President of Russia with 53% of the vote. • April 2005—Putin declares the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical disaster” of the 20th century. • May 7, 2008—Putin appointed prime minister after temporarily handing Russian presidency to his protégé, Dmitri Medvedev. • August 2008—Medvedev & Putin order Russian forces to invade Georgia. • November 17, 2009—Putin employees murder Sergei Magnitsky, lawyer for key Putin critic, who was in a Russian jail being held on false charges. • May 7, 2012—Putin resumes position as president after winning March election with 65% of the vote. • December 14, 2012—President Barack Obama signs into law the Magnitsky Act, which enables sanctions to be imposed against Russian officials implicated in the death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dual Structure and Mentality of Vladimir Putin´S Power Coalition: A
    This report analyses the Russian authoritarian regime that emerged under Vladimir Putin and attempts to give a wider context to the so-called FSB-ization of the Russian government. The Dual Structure and Mentality of Joris van Bladel The first part of the report deals with Putin’s main achievements in domestic and foreign policy and examines the extent to which state policy has fulfilled the aspirations of the Russian public. The much-needed stability and Vladimir Putin’s Power Coalition security that Putin has brought to the country seem to outweigh the fact that the government has veered towards authoritarianism. The degree to which Russian society has truly been taken over by the FSB is critically examined, A legacy for Medvedev and this process of FSB-ization is explained in a wider social and historical context. DR. JORIS VAN BLADEL The second part aims to bring some insight into the current political dynamic by examining the power relations in the coalition and the mentalities typical of the major factions: the ‘siloviki’ and the liberal. In particular, the ‘siloviki’ are critically examined with regard to their history, their typical modes of thinking, and their rise to influence. The very notion of ‘siloviki’ is given a more precise explanation by showing why they have come to power, whom the term ‘siloviki’ should actually be applied to, what their mode of thinking is like, and how PowerCoalition Putin’s Vladimir of Mentality and Dual Structure The influential they are likely to be in the future. The study then focuses on the actual siloviki faction: its members, its role, and its influence.
    [Show full text]