DOCSLIB.ORG

Russia in the Middle East — Aron Lund

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Russia in the Middle East — Aron Lund 2/2019 Russia in the Middle East — Aron Lund PUBLISHED BY THE SWEDISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS | UI.SE Abstract It may be a cliché, but that does not make it any less true: Russia has returned to the Middle East. Since intervening militarily in Syria in 2015, Russia has transformed the battlefield, saved its allies, and established itself as the driving force in international diplomacy on Syria. Meanwhile, Moscow is selling arms worth billions of dollars to Algeria and Egypt, and has teamed up with Saudi Arabia to put its thumb on the scale of global oil prices. Russia is working closely with Iran, Turkey, and Israel in Syria, and maintains relations with Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and a host of other nations – many of which are hostile to each other but friendly to Russia. Looking back at Russia’s rise to influence in the Middle East since the 2011 Arab Spring, it seems clear that President Vladimir Putin’s successes stem less from a consistently applied strategy than from the effective, pragmatic exploitation of new opportunities and unforced Western errors. Nonetheless, there are limits to how far Russia can rise, and Putin will need to watch his step as he moves deeper into a region riddled with complex, interlocking conflicts. Even today, Moscow’s regional footprint remains small next to that of the United States and, mired in economic and structural dysfunction at home, it is far from certain that the Kremlin’s swelling global ambition can be sustained in the longer term. As Russia’s appetite for influence increases, so do the risks. This UI Paper traces Moscow’s role in the Middle East and North Africa through Soviet times to the present day. It seeks to shed light on what drives the Kremlin’s engagement with the region, how local actors respond to Russian policy, and the role Russia is carving out for itself in the Middle East.1 Aron Lund Associate Fellow, UI 1 I gratefully acknowledge the assistance with Russian-language translation and research provided by Liliia Makashova, intern at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs 2018. © 2019 The Swedish Institute of International Affairs Language editing: Andrew Mash Cover photo: Shutterstock Content The Soviet Union and the Middle East ...................................................................................... 4 Post-Soviet Russian Middle East Policy .................................................................................... 8 The Chechen Trauma ..................................................................................................................... 9 Reasserting Russian Particularity ................................................................................................ 11 Middle East Engagement under Putin ......................................................................................... 12 Talk to All, Trade with All ............................................................................................................ 13 The Medvedev Interregnum ........................................................................................................ 16 Russia and the Arab Spring ....................................................................................................... 17 The Libyan Turning Point ............................................................................................................. 18 Nationalist-Authoritarian Retrenchment .................................................................................... 20 Syria as a Problem and an Opportunity ...................................................................................... 21 The Russian Intervention ............................................................................................................. 23 Flipping Turkey ............................................................................................................................ 24 After Syria: Taking Stock of Russia’s New Role ....................................................................... 25 Economic Interests Remain Key ................................................................................................... 35 Russia’s Increasing Appetite: The Cases of Libya and Lebanon................................................... 37 The Authoritarian Advantage ...................................................................................................... 39 Who Runs Russian Middle East Policy? .................................................................................... 41 Kadyrov: Proxy or Freelancer? ..................................................................................................... 42 The Wagner Phenomenon ........................................................................................................... 44 Conclusions: Strategy or Improvisation? ................................................................................. 45 Sources ...................................................................................................................................... 47 Books and Reports ....................................................................................................................... 47 Interviews .................................................................................................................................... 49 © 2019 The Swedish Institute of International Affairs 3 harmful to Moscow’s strategic position. The The Soviet Union three nations regarded in Moscow as the Middle East’s northern tier – Iran, Turkey, and the Middle and Afghanistan – were consistently prioritized in Soviet geopolitical thinking East over the mostly Arab nations further south.7 As a result of Stalin’s policy blunders, however, Moscow would remain at a Russia is no newcomer to the Middle East. crippling disadvantage in Turkey and Iran For centuries, Imperial Russia traded and for the duration of the Cold War. fought with Persia and the Ottoman Empire, while the Arab World “lay just The growth of Soviet influence across the outside the limit of St. Petersburg’s Arab World in the 1950s and 1960s provided geopolitical ambitions.”2 some recompense. Communist doctrine remained unpopular for its atheism, but the The Soviet Union would eventually reverse Soviet Union’s outspoken support for Third that order, albeit more out of necessity than World liberation struggles struck a chord choice. Bursting into the region like a bull in with Arab nationalists.8 Anti-colonialism a china shop after the Second World War, it mingled with dreams of social equality, and took Soviet dictator Josef Stalin only a few Arab politics already bristled against the years to alienate every regional power of West over a host of grievances: Israel’s significance. In the late 1940s, a short-lived 1947–1949 expulsion of the Palestinians, the Soviet flirtation with Kurdish and Azeri 1954–1962 Algerian War, the 1955 Baghdad separatism tipped Iran into the pro-Western Pact, and the 1956 Suez Crisis, to name just camp;3 military saber-rattling set neutral a few. Turkey on the path to NATO membership;4 and support for Israeli independence By loosening the shackles of ideology, repelled the rising regional force of Arab offering assistance to new and struggling Nationalism.5 Stalin then turned against nations, and latching on to popular Israel, too.6 nationalist causes such as the Palestinian struggle, Stalin’s successor, Nikita Although these were mostly self-inflicted Khrushchev, was able to leapfrog the wounds, they were nonetheless extremely Turkish-Iranian wall and establish new bases 2 aborted only by Stalin’s death. Primakov traces the anti-Jewish Dmitri Trenin, What Is Russia Up to in the Middle East?, Polity campaign to a cynical ploy by feuding party chiefs. See Yevgeny Press, 2018, p. 16. Primakov, Russia and the Arabs: Behind the Scenes in the 3 Middle East from the Cold War to the Present, Basic Books, Nikki R. Keddie, Modern Iran: Roots and Results of 2009, p. 254–259. Revolution, Yale University Press, 2003, p. 110 ff; Alexey 7 Vasiliev, Russia’s Middle East Policy: From Lenin to Putin, Afghanistan had served as an arena for great power conflict Routledge, 2018, p. 23. Vasiliev notes that Soviet-Iranian already in the 19th century, during the Russian-British “great relations improved after 1963, when the Shah promised not to game.” The significance accorded to Iran and Turkey is not allow US missiles to be based in Iran. Vasiliev 2018, p. 52. difficult to understand. Both are regional powers with 4 considerable cultural influence, whose imperial pasts are closely Talal Nizameddin, Russia and the Middle East: Towards a intertwined with Russia’s own. Their combined population is New Foreign Policy, St Martin's Press, 1999, p. 221–222; larger than that of modern Russia and each is strategically Vasiliev 22–23. Turkey joined NATO in 1952, in what Trenin located in its own way, dominating the opposite shores of the calls “a major coup for the West in the Cold War.” Trenin 2018, Black Sea and the Caspian. Iran has large hydrocarbon p. 19. resources and overlooks the world’s most oil-rich region, the 5 The Soviet Union was the first country to recognize Israel, and Persian Gulf, and the oil trade chokepoint at the Hormuz Straits. Communist Czechoslovakia delivered much-needed arms to the Turkey’s Bosporus Straits control access to the Black Sea, Jewish forces. Aryeh Dayan, “The Communists Who Saved the which, to quote the British specialist on Soviet strategy Michael Jewish State,” Ha'aretz,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Is Russia Trying to Defend? ✩ Andrei Yakovlev
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Russian Journal of Economics 2 (2016) 146–161 www.rujec.org What is Russia trying to defend? ✩ Andrei Yakovlev Institute for Industrial and Market Studies, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia Abstract Contrary to the focus on the events of the last two years (2014–2015) associated with the accession of Crimea to Russia and military conflict in Eastern Ukraine, in this study, I stress that serious changes in Russian domestic policy (with strong pres­ sure on political opposition, state propaganda and sharp anti-Western rhetoric, as well as the fight against “foreign agents’) became visible in 2012. Geopolitical ambitions to revise the “global order” (introduced by the USA after the collapse of the USSR) and the increased role of Russia in “global governance” were declared by leaders of the country much earlier, with Vladimir Putin’s famous Munich speech in 2007. These ambitions were based on the robust economic growth of the mid-2000s, which en­ couraged the Russian ruling elite to adopt the view that Russia (with its huge energy resources) is a new economic superpower. In this paper, I will show that the con­ cept of “Militant Russia” in a proper sense can be attributed rather to the period of the mid-2000s. After 2008–2009, the global financial crisis and, especially, the Arab Spring and mass political protests against electoral fraud in Moscow in December 2011, the Russian ruling elite made mostly “militant” attempts to defend its power and assets. © 2016 Non-profit partnership “Voprosy Ekonomiki”. Hosting by Elsevier B.V.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pennsylvania United Nations Conference
    PUNC X: THE PENNSYLVANIA UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE Table of Contents Letter from the Crisis Director Page 2 Letter from the Chair Page 3 Background Page 4 Russia Since 2016 – Notable Events Page 5 Delegate Positions Page 7 Committee Structure Page 10 Committee Goals Page 11 Sources Page 11 1 PUNC X: THE PENNSYLVANIA UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE Delegates, My name is Milan Liu and I’ll be serving as your crisis director for the Russian Unity Conference 2020 at PUNC X. I’m a freshman at Penn State, pursuing a double major in International Politics and Geography, as well as minors in Chinese and Global Security. In addition to my love for international affairs and maps, I enjoy horseback riding, traveling, and binge-watching political dramas on Netflix. I have been involved in Model UN since my sophomore year of high school, and attended conferences at Penn State twice. I joined PSIADA last semester, and had the pleasure of crisis directing the Antarctic Treaty 2038 committee at PHUNC, Penn State’s high school Model UN conference, in the fall. I have always looked forward to Model UN conferences, and PUNC X is no exception. I’m excited to see the creativity of this group of delegates, and how you respond to the challenges Russia will face throughout the weekend. Feel free to reach out with any questions or concerns, and I’ll be happy to help in any way I can. Best, Milan [email protected] 2 PUNC X: THE PENNSYLVANIA UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE Delegates, Hello everyone! My name is Robert Liu and I am excited to be your Chair for Russian Unity Conference 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian History: a Brief Chronology (998-2000)
    Russian History: A Brief Chronology (998-2000) 1721 Sweden cedes the eastern shores of the Baltic Sea to Russia (Treaty of Nystad). In celebration, Peter’s title Kievan Russia is changed from tsar to Emperor of All Russia Abolition of the Patrarchate of Moscow. Religious authority passes to the Holy Synod and its Ober- prokuror, appointed by the tsar. 988 Conversion to Christianity 1722 Table of Ranks 1237-1240 Mongol Invasion 1723-25 The Persian Campaign. Persia cedes western and southern shores of the Caspian to Russia Muscovite Russia 1724 Russia’s Academy of Sciences is established 1725 Peter I dies on February 8 1380 The Battle of Kulikovo 1725-1727 Catherine I 1480 End of Mongol Rule 1727-1730 Peter II 1462-1505 Ivan III 1730-1740 Anne 1505-1533 Basil III 1740-1741 Ivan VI 1533-1584 Ivan the Terrible 1741-1762 Elizabeth 1584-98 Theodore 1744 Sophie Friederike Auguste von Anhalt-Zerbst arrives in Russia and assumes the name of Grand Duchess 1598-1613 The Time of Troubles Catherine Alekseevna after her marriage to Grand Duke Peter (future Peter III) 1613-45 Michael Romanoff 1762 Peter III 1645-76 Alexis 1762 Following a successful coup d’etat in St. Petersburg 1672-82 Theodore during which Peter III is assassinated, Catherine is proclaimed Emress of All Russia Imperial Russia 1762-1796 Catherine the Great 1767 Nakaz (The Instruction) 1772-1795 Partitions of Poland 1682-1725 Peter I 1773-1774 Pugachev Rebellion 1689 The Streltsy Revolt and Suppression; End of Sophia’s Regency 1785 Charter to the Nobility 1695-96 The Azov Campaigns 1791 Establishment fo the Pale of Settlement (residential restrictions on Jews) in the parts of Poland with large 1697-98 Peter’s travels abroad (The Grand Embassy) Jewish populations, annexed to Russia in the partitions of Poland (1772, 1793, and 1795) and in the 1698 The revolt and the final suppression of the Streltsy Black Sea liitoral annexed from Turkey.
    [Show full text]
  • Iran: Ethnic and Religious Minorities
    Order Code RL34021 Iran: Ethnic and Religious Minorities Updated November 25, 2008 Hussein D. Hassan Information Research Specialist Knowledge Services Group Iran: Ethnic and Religious Minorities Summary Iran is home to approximately 70.5 million people who are ethnically, religiously, and linguistically diverse. The central authority is dominated by Persians who constitute 51% of Iran’s population. Iranians speak diverse Indo-Iranian, Semitic, Armenian, and Turkic languages. The state religion is Shia, Islam. After installation by Ayatollah Khomeini of an Islamic regime in February 1979, treatment of ethnic and religious minorities grew worse. By summer of 1979, initial violent conflicts erupted between the central authority and members of several tribal, regional, and ethnic minority groups. This initial conflict dashed the hope and expectation of these minorities who were hoping for greater cultural autonomy under the newly created Islamic State. The U.S. State Department’s 2008 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, released September 19, 2008, cited Iran for widespread serious abuses, including unjust executions, politically motivated abductions by security forces, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, and arrests of women’s rights activists. According to the State Department’s 2007 Country Report on Human Rights (released on March 11, 2008), Iran’s poor human rights record worsened, and it continued to commit numerous, serious abuses. The government placed severe restrictions on freedom of religion. The report also cited violence and legal and societal discrimination against women, ethnic and religious minorities. Incitement to anti-Semitism also remained a problem. Members of the country’s non-Muslim religious minorities, particularly Baha’is, reported imprisonment, harassment, and intimidation based on their religious beliefs.
    [Show full text]
  • Mammadov Azerbaijan's Geopolitical Identity.Indd
    # 62 VALDAI PAPERS February 2017 www.valdaiclub.com AZERBAIJAN’S GEOPOLITICAL IDENTITY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE 21ST CENTURY CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS Farhad Mammadov About the author: Farhad Mammadov PhD in Philosophy, Director, Center for Strategic Studies under the President of Azerbaijan The views and opinions expressed in this Paper are those of the author and do not represent the views of the Valdai Discussion Club, unless explicitly stated otherwise. AZERBAIJAN’S GEOPOLITICAL IDENTITY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE 21ST CENTURY CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS The 21st century began with chaos in international relations, the growing multipolarity of the once unipolar world, and geographic determinism giving prominence to regional leaders, who are resisting unipolar projects and competing with each other in their geographical region. However, nation states have shown that they are still to be reckoned with. International organizations and transnational law enforcement agencies, which were created to fi ght transnational threats such as international terrorism, drug cartels and criminal organizations, have not increased their effi ciency. Nation states continue to shoulder the biggest burden of fi ghting the above threats. Globalization has stimulated integration and accelerated various global processes, but it has not made this world safer or more stable. The connection between national, regional and global security is growing stronger. The fact that transnational threats operate as a network has highlighted the importance of interaction between nation states in fi ghting these threats. But strained relations between the geopolitical power centers, contradictions between regional states and the revival of bloc mentality are hindering the civilized world from consolidating its resources.
    [Show full text]
  • The Siloviki in Russian Politics
    The Siloviki in Russian Politics Andrei Soldatov and Michael Rochlitz Who holds power and makes political decisions in contemporary Russia? A brief survey of available literature in any well-stocked bookshop in the US or Europe will quickly lead one to the answer: Putin and the “siloviki” (see e.g. LeVine 2009; Soldatov and Borogan 2010; Harding 2011; Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky 2012; Lucas 2012, 2014 or Dawisha 2014). Sila in Russian means force, and the siloviki are the members of Russia’s so called “force ministries”—those state agencies that are authorized to use violence to respond to threats to national security. These armed agents are often portrayed—by journalists and scholars alike—as Russia’s true rulers. A conventional wisdom has emerged about their rise to dominance, which goes roughly as follows. After taking office in 2000, Putin reconsolidated the security services and then gradually placed his former associates from the KGB and FSB in key positions across the country (Petrov 2002; Kryshtanovskaya and White 2003, 2009). Over the years, this group managed to disable almost all competing sources of power and control. United by a common identity, a shared worldview, and a deep personal loyalty to Putin, the siloviki constitute a cohesive corporation, which has entrenched itself at the heart of Russian politics. Accountable to no one but the president himself, they are the driving force behind increasingly authoritarian policies at home (Illarionov 2009; Roxburgh 2013; Kasparov 2015), an aggressive foreign policy (Lucas 2014), and high levels of state predation and corruption (Dawisha 2014). While this interpretation contains elements of truth, we argue that it provides only a partial and sometimes misleading and exaggerated picture of the siloviki’s actual role.
    [Show full text]
  • A Strategy for Success in Libya
    A Strategy for Success in Libya Emily Estelle NOVEMBER 2017 A Strategy for Success in Libya Emily Estelle NOVEMBER 2017 AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE © 2017 by the American Enterprise Institute. All rights reserved. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) educational organization and does not take institutional positions on any issues. The views expressed here are those of the author(s). Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................1 Why the US Must Act in Libya Now ............................................................................................................................1 Wrong Problem, Wrong Strategy ............................................................................................................................... 2 What to Do ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Reframing US Policy in Libya .................................................................................................. 5 America’s Opportunity in Libya ................................................................................................................................. 6 The US Approach in Libya ............................................................................................................................................ 6 The Current Situation
    [Show full text]
  • Selected Practice of the UN Security
    SELECTED PRACTISE OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL IN RELATION TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND THE ROME STATUTE SYSTEM (1998-2012) 3nd Update: 10 October 2012 Contents: 1. Highlights on the fight against impunity through referrals by the Security Council under Article 13 of the Rome Statute ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Côte d’Ivoire .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Darfur, Sudan ................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Democratic Republic of the Congo .................................................................................................. 5 1.4 Gaza ................................................................................................................................................. 5 1.5 Kenya ............................................................................................................................................... 5 1.6 Libya ................................................................................................................................................ 6 1.7 Mali .................................................................................................................................................. 6 1.8 Myanmar/Burma .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 68Th EMMY® AWARDS NOMINATIONS for Programs Airing June 1, 2015 – May 31, 2016
    EMBARGOED UNTIL 8:40AM PT ON JULY 14, 2016 68th EMMY® AWARDS NOMINATIONS For Programs Airing June 1, 2015 – May 31, 2016 Los Angeles, CA, July 14, 2016– Nominations for the 68th Emmy® Awards were announced today by the Television Academy in a ceremony hosted by Television Academy Chairman and CEO Bruce Rosenblum along with Anthony Anderson from the ABC series black-ish and Lauren Graham from Parenthood and the upcoming Netflix revival, Gilmore Girls. "Television dominates the entertainment conversation and is enjoying the most spectacular run in its history with breakthrough creativity, emerging platforms and dynamic new opportunities for our industry's storytellers," said Rosenblum. “From favorites like Game of Thrones, Veep, and House of Cards to nominations newcomers like black-ish, Master of None, The Americans and Mr. Robot, television has never been more impactful in its storytelling, sheer breadth of series and quality of performances by an incredibly diverse array of talented performers. “The Television Academy is thrilled to once again honor the very best that television has to offer.” This year’s Drama and Comedy Series nominees include first-timers as well as returning programs to the Emmy competition: black-ish and Master of None are new in the Outstanding Comedy Series category, and Mr. Robot and The Americans in the Outstanding Drama Series competition. Additionally, both Veep and Game of Thrones return to vie for their second Emmy in Outstanding Comedy Series and Outstanding Drama Series respectively. While Game of Thrones again tallied the most nominations (23), limited series The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story and Fargo received 22 nominations and 18 nominations respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's “Pivot to Asia”
    Russia’s “Pivot to Asia”: The Multilateral Dimension Stephen Blank STEPHEN BLANK is a Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council. He can be reached at <[email protected]>. NOTE: Sections of this working paper draw on Stephen Blank, “Russian Writers on the Decline of Russia in the Far East and the Rise of China,” Jamestown Foundation, Russia in Decline Project, September 13, 2016. Working Paper, June 28, 2017 – Stephen Blank EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This paper explores the opportunities and challenges that Russia has faced in its economic pivot to Asia and examines the potential roadblocks to its future integration with the region with special regard to multilateral Asian institutions. Main Argument Despite the challenges Russia faces, many Russian writers and officials continue to insist that the country is making visible strides forward in its so-called pivot to Asia. Russia’s ability to influence the many multilateral projects that pervade Asia from the Arctic to Southeast Asia and increase its role in them represents an “acid test” of whether or not proclamations of the correctness of Russian policy can stand up to scrutiny. Such scrutiny shows that Russia is failing to benefit from or participate in these projects. The one exception, the Eurasian Union, has become an economic disappointment to both Russia and its other members. Russia is actually steadily losing ground to China in the Arctic, Central Asia, and North Korea. Likewise, in Southeast Asia Moscow has promoted and signed many agreements with members of ASEAN, only to fail to implement them practically. Since Asia, as Moscow well knows, is the most dynamic sector of the global economy, this failure to reform at home and implement the developmental steps needed to compete in Asia can only presage negative geoeconomic and geopolitical consequences for Russia as it steadily becomes increasingly marginalized in the region despite its rhetoric and diplomatic activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Organized Crime and the Russian State Challenges to U.S.-Russian Cooperation
    Organized Crime and the Russian State Challenges to U.S.-Russian Cooperation J. MICHAEL WALLER "They write I'm the mafia's godfather. It was Vladimir Ilich Lenin who was the real organizer of the mafia and who set up the criminal state." -Otari Kvantrishvili, Moscow organized crime leader.l "Criminals Nave already conquered the heights of the state-with the chief of the KGB as head of a mafia group." -Former KGB Maj. Gen. Oleg Kalugin.2 Introduction As the United States and Russia launch a Great Crusade against organized crime, questions emerge not only about the nature of joint cooperation, but about the nature of organized crime itself. In addition to narcotics trafficking, financial fraud and racketecring, Russian organized crime poses an even greater danger: the theft and t:rafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To date, most of the discussion of organized crime based in Russia and other former Soviet republics has emphasized the need to combat conven- tional-style gangsters and high-tech terrorists. These forms of criminals are a pressing danger in and of themselves, but the problem is far more profound. Organized crime-and the rarnpant corruption that helps it flourish-presents a threat not only to the security of reforms in Russia, but to the United States as well. The need for cooperation is real. The question is, Who is there in Russia that the United States can find as an effective partner? "Superpower of Crime" One of the greatest mistakes the West can make in working with former Soviet republics to fight organized crime is to fall into the trap of mirror- imaging.
    [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]