Putin to the West: Hands Off Ukraine

By James Marson / Kiev

Vladimir Putin, Russia's prime minister and former president, is not renowned for his love of literature. But on Sunday he gave Russian journalists an unexpected reading tip: the diaries of Anton Denikin, a commander in the White Army that fought the Bolsheviks after the Revolution in 1917. (See TIME's photos of last year's war in Georgia)

"He has a discussion there about Big Russia and Little Russia — Ukraine," Russian newswires quoted Putin as saying after laying a wreath in Moscow at the grave of Denikin, who is now portrayed as a Russian patriot. "He says that no one should be allowed to interfere in relations between us; they have always been the business of Russia itself." (See TIME's person of the year: Vladimir Putin)

Putin's words are seen as the latest in an ongoing volley of pointed warnings to the West not to meddle in Ukraine, a country with such close historical and cultural ties to Russia that the Kremlin considers it firmly within its sphere of interests.

"The Russian leadership is very apprehensive about what it sees as Western moves designed to tear Ukraine away from Russia," says Dmitry Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, an independent think tank in Moscow. "Their central foreign policy goal is to create a power center around Russia. Any move by the West towards the former Soviet republics is seen as damaging Russia's interests."

Moscow has reacted angrily to Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko's attempts in recent years to gain NATO membership, and to a recent agreement in March for the European Union to help modernize Ukraine's aging gas transport system. "This agreement is Exhibit A in Moscow's collection [of complaints]," says Trenin. "It's evidence that Europe is concluding bilateral deals with Ukraine that undermine Russia's interests."

Russian leaders have also expressed concerns about the E.U.'s Eastern Partnership program, unveiled earlier this month, which aims to deepen economic and political ties with six former Soviet states, including Ukraine. At the E.U.-Russia summit in Khabarovsk over the weekend, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said E.U. officials had "failed to persuade" him that it was not harmful to Russian interests. "What confuses me is that some states... see this partnership as a partnership against Russia," he said.

Putin's reference on Sunday to "Little Russia" — a term used during the Russian Empire to describe parts of modern-day Ukraine that came under Tsarist rule — has raised hackles in Ukraine, where many consider it demeaning and offensive.

"These comments by Putin should be taken very seriously," says Olexandr Paliy, a political analyst with the Institute of Foreign Policy at the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Diplomatic Academy. "Russia is engaged in a propaganda war against Ukraine, designed to convince the West not to support Ukraine. Russia doesn't understand cooperation with equals, only with subordinates."

Putin is not known for his tact when speaking of Russia's western neighbor, which declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. In April 2008, a source told Russia's Kommersant newspaper how Putin described Ukraine to George Bush at a NATO meeting in Bucharest: "You don't understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a state. What is Ukraine? Part of its territories is Eastern Europe, but the greater part is a gift from us."

Such rhetoric led to fears that after its army's foray into South Ossetia in August, Russia would turn its attention to Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, which has a predominantly ethnic Russian population and is home to Russia's Black Sea Fleet. In an article in Ukraine's Den newspaper on Thursday, Yuriy Shcherbak, Ukraine's former ambassador to the U.S., wrote political analysts close to the Russian leadership were keen to portray Ukraine, which has huge economic woes and a political elite riven by in-fighting, as a "failed state."

"Aggressive conversations are taking place concerning Ukraine and the dividing of its territory... at various levels of the Russian political, military and secret service leadership," he wrote. In fact, other experts suggest, such belligerent talk is meant more as a corrective threat than a potential course of action. But even if Moscow has no immediate designs on Crimea, the continued flow of baleful utterances from the Kremlin does reflect a desire for what Medvedev has called Russia's "privileged interests" in the region to be respected — in terms of politics, business and culture.

And the Kremlin certainly has plenty of levers to pull in Ukraine to make its views felt, with its control over gas supplies, alongside the popularity of Russian state-controlled TV in the east and south of the country, where pro-Russian sentiment is strongest. "In certain sections of the Ukrainian political and business elite there are links with Russia stretching back to Soviet times," says Paliy from the Institute of Foreign Policy. "There are also a large number of Russian-sponsored think tanks in Ukraine, which function freely and push the Kremlin's views."

These levers are likely to play a significant role in Ukraine's upcoming presidential elections, set for next January. Last time round in 2004, Russia and Putin threw their weight behind then-Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, whose initial victory was overturned after massive protests after massive protests in Kiev against vote-rigging, which turned into the so-called the Orange Revolution. This time, analysts say that the Kremlin is likely to diversify its approach, with support for both Yanukovych and previously hostile Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, President Yushchenko's former Orange ally.

"The Russian leadership learnt one important lesson from 2004 — not to put all their eggs in one basket," says Trenin. Meanwhile Russians and Ukrainians alike will be watching for Putin's next trenchant explanation from literary history.

NATO says Georgia will join as maneuvers are held

By DAVID NOWAK – 13 hours ago

TBILISI, Georgia (AP) — NATO said Monday that Georgia will eventually become a member — reaffirming its support for the country with which it is hosting joint military exercises, to Russia's dismay.

Robert Simmons, NATO's special envoy to the Caucasus and Central Asia, refused to set a date for Georgia's entry into the military alliance, saying that would be futile. Georgia, a former Soviet republic that borders Russia, has been embroiled in domestic political infighting.

Russia has sharply criticized the war games being held near South Ossetia, a rebel-held separatist province that was at the center of the war last summer between Russia and Georgia. And confirmation of NATO's intent to accept Georgia will probably anger Russia.

NATO has said before that Georgia and Ukraine can eventually join the alliance despite Russia's opposition, but has stopped short of granting them a formal roadmap to membership.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, criticized by the opposition for failing to avert the disastrous war, attended Monday's military exercises on a wind-blown hilltop base just outside the capital, Tbilisi.

Saakashvili has faced daily protests by thousands of opposition activists urging him to step down. He has said he will not leave office before his term ends in 2013.

Simmons said the way Saakashvili has allowed the opposition to protest virtually unhindered was a positive sign.

During Monday's training, American, Spanish, Italian and Greek soldiers walked Georgian military through various battlefield attack techniques. The Georgian soldiers trained with Russian-made weapons and fired at silhouette targets dotted around the field as NATO troops observed, occasionally intervening.

A helicopter landed just yards (meters) from the field in which the live-fire exercise was being conducted, drawing gasps from British personnel. The helicopter later whisked Saakashvili away.

Russia urges dialogue with Hamas

UPDATED ON:
Sunday, May 24, 2009
21:02 Mecca time, 18:02 GMT
News Middle East
s
Lavrov said Hamas' position on peace negotiations was more "realistic" than before [EPA]

Russia's foreign minister has said talks with the Palestinian group Hamas were "needed" to achieve lasting peace in the Middle East.

"We are certain that this is needed," the Russia interfax news agency quoted Sergei Lavrov as saying on Sunday after meeting Khaled Meshaal, the Hamas leader, in the Syrian capital, Damascus, where he lives in exile.

"It was the first very important step on the way to overcoming the present stagnation in the negotiations process," Lavrov said about the meeting.

"The two main aims are to stop Israel's current policy on the settlements and from the Palestinian side to rebuild and reunite the peoples [Hamas and Fatah]."

A statement from the office of Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, said on Sunday: "We are deeply disappointed by the Russian government decision to keep up relations with terrorist groups.

"Hamas is a terrorist organisation, recognised as such internationally, including by the Quartet," it said, referring to the international Quartet for Middle East peace of which Russia is a member.

Recent tension

Russia had recently criticised Hamas for not doing what it considers enough to achieve reconciliation with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and his Fatah faction.

"We are deeply disappointed by the Russian government decision to keep up relations with terrorist groups"

Statement from the office of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister
Hamas had, in turn, shown little enthusiasm for Russia's plans to hold a Middle East peace conference this year, partly because Palestinians would have been represented by Abbas.

But Lavrov said the mood had changed.

"Everybody expressed and confirmed their support for the conference later this year in Moscow for the Middle East, and confirmed that the necessary conditions would be created for that to happen."

"The responsibility that Hamas feels is not just for what happens in Gaza, but for the fate of the entire Palestinian people."

Russia's proposed meeting would be a follow-up to one organised by the United States in Annapolis, Maryland in November 2007, during the tenure of George Bush, the former US president.

Russia is the only member of the Quartet of Middle East negotiators - which includes the European Union, the United Nations and the United States - that does not boycott Hamas.

The Quartet wants Hamas to renounce armed struggle, recognise Israel and accept agreements concluded between the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Israel.
Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

Competing for Privilege

The Moscow Times » Issue 4152 » Opinion


25 May 2009By Dmitry TreninSooner or later, it was bound to happen. While Russia was determined to create a center of power in the Commonwealth of Independent States, the enlarged European Union started paying more attention not only to the "new Eastern Europe" (Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine), but also to the South Caucasus and Central Asia -- all areas of what is still being called, with decreasing validity, the former Soviet Union. Europe's Eastern Partnership with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine is the clearest statement so far of its capability and willingness to project its soft power onto what Moscow regards as its hereditary sphere of influence.

Few in Moscow were amused by the EU's move, sponsored as it was by Stockholm and Warsaw and presented in Prague. The Kremlin sees the Eastern Partnership -- under the guise of innocent-enough goals that few could oppose, such as increased trade and cooperation -- as yet another geopolitical attempt by the West to wean these countries away from Moscow's orbit. The tension was seen at the EU-Russia summit on Friday in Khabarovsk, despite the smiles and friendly protocol that was observed.

For some, the only solace is that Eastern Partnership may be too weak and unsustainable for a real breakthrough. With just a few hundred million euros in the bank and no prospect of EU membership for any of the six former Soviet republics in the foreseeable future, the initiative might as well fizzle out after the Swedish EU presidency in the second half of 2009. When it comes to relations with Russia, the EU is notoriously disunited.

Whether apprehensive or dismissive, Moscow sees the situation in terms of a geopolitical competition between itself ("defending its birthright") and an assertive West ("expanding its influence.") Some may even remember the mock warnings heard from some U.S. observers a decade ago: For Russia, NATO's enlargement to the east will have very "light" consequences compared with the EU's. To those Russians who at the time took the position of "anything but NATO," they quoted the old Chinese curse, "be careful what you wish for." Now, these warnings are being vindicated.

The Russians are right about increased competition in their neighborhood but wrong about its nature and its drivers. The name of the game is not dominance and allegiance but freedom and models of development. The new Eastern Europeans and nations of the South Caucasus are not a prize to be won or lost in a global geopolitical game. They decide for themselves who they want to align themselves with -- the EU, Russia or perhaps some combination of the two.

To Our Readers

The Moscow Times welcomes letters to the editor. Letters for publication should be signed and bear the signatory's address and telephone number.
Letters to the editor should be sent by fax to (7-495) 232-6529, by e-mail to oped@imedia.ru, or by post. The Moscow Times reserves the right to edit letters.

Email the Opinion Page Editor
The choice is not a simple "switching of alliances." For all the talk of a Brussels diktat, the six countries -- just like the Central Europeans before them -- feel much more comfortable dealing with a nonhegemonic EU than a heavy-handed Moscow. Europe may see the six nations as backward and requiring economic assistance, but it treats them as independent. Moscow, by contrast, unabashedly views the neighbors as its own "zone of interests" (or "privileged interests," as President Dmitry Medvedev distinctively coined.) This creates apprehension in those countries that remember very well what is what like to spend decades under Moscow's control. It is noteworthy that in the aftermath of the Georgia war last August, not a single Russian ally or integration partner followed Moscow in recognizing Abkhazia or South Ossetia. They all refused not out of any affection or sympathy for Georgia or President Mikheil Saakashvili. They were simply sending a Moscow a distinct message: We are independent states, not adjuncts of a former superpower.

The issue is not just money either. Although money is important, especially in a crisis, it is the opportunity that the world's largest economy generates that motivates Russia's neighbors. By contrast, Russia remains an economy largely built on energy and raw material resources, and once it phased out subsidies for its gas deliveries and started using economic sanctions for political ends, its power of attraction diminished greatly. Countries that seek paths to faster development and economic modernization look to the West, not to Moscow.

Whether the six Eastern Partnership countries succeed or fail makes a lot of difference to themselves, the EU and Russia. They need all the support and attention from Brussels and the EU member states that they can get. Ukraine, in particular, is crucial. Putting the divisive NATO issue to one side, Kiev and Brussels need to focus on the EU to help modernize the largest country in Eastern Europe. Moldova, one of the EU's smallest and poorest new partners, requires urgent attention in Brussels to prevent a social and economic meltdown on Europe's doorstep. In Moldova and the South Caucasus, the EU needs to become more present and effective as Russia's partner in resolving the many conflicts. And as Europe diversifies its energy imports, it will need to become more seriously involved with the countries in the Caspian region. This calls for a long-term EU strategy and a coordinated foreign policy. This is a tall order, but if successful it will be a quantum leap for Europe.

Ironically, Russia is likely to benefit from Europe's cohesion and its neighbors' success. Moscow's obsession with the 19th-century notions of geopolitics is a drag on its own post-imperial adjustment. Only when it is fully divested of these hang-ups will it be able to find a fitting place and a useful role for itself in the globalized environment.

In the long term, Russia will probably not follow its neighbors into the EU, although joining a pan-European economic area and a European-Atlantic security compact would make a lot of sense. Russia will stay as a separate unit, but it will recognize the EU not as its geopolitical rival, but as a regional leader and a rich source of modernization. The Kremlin will live to enjoy the proximity and learn to profit from the occasional friction. Finally, it will also learn the art of dealing with smaller neighbors through methods other than dominating, bullying or punishing them.

By 2030, United Europe for Russia may begin just beyond Belgorod and Bryansk. This will be a huge relief for a country whose standing in the world will be decided not by what occurs in Europe but by what happens in Asia.

Dmitry Trenin is director of the Carnegie Moscow Center.



© Copyright 2007. The Moscow Times. All rights reserved.

Moldova: MEPs condemn grave violations of human rights following parliamentary elections

(Plenary sessions)
External relations - 07-05-2009 - 13:20
Download the article in PDF format

MEPs strongly condemn the massive campaign of harassment, grave violations of human rights and all other illegal actions carried out by the Moldovan Government in the aftermath of the parliamentary elections. MEPs call for a special investigation to be conducted into the cases of those who died during the demonstrations and urge the Council to consider sending a Rule of Law Mission. The resolution was adopted with 467 votes in favour, 27 against and 18 abstentions.
Parliament reaffirms its commitment to continuing a "meaningful and goal-oriented dialogue" with the Republic of Moldova, but attaches great importance to the introduction of strong provisions regarding the rule of law and respect for human rights.

The Commission, the Council and the Member States must make full use of the ENP and, of the Eastern Partnership to establish greater stability, better governance and economic development in the Republic of Moldova and in the other countries at the Union's eastern borders. A goal set for June 2009 is to launch the negotiations on the new Agreement between the Republic of Moldova and the EU at the EU-Moldova Cooperation Council.

MEPs believe that, in order to preserve its credibility for the people of the Republic of Moldova, the EU should become involved in the management of the current situation in a proactive, profound and comprehensive way. Parliament urges the Council to consider sending a Rule of Law Mission to the Republic of Moldova, in order to assist the law enforcement authorities in their reform process, especially in the police and justice areas.

MEPs call for a special investigation to be conducted into the cases of those who died during the events following the elections as well as into all allegations of rape and ill-treatment during detention and politically-motivated arrests, such as those of Anatol Matasaru and Gabriel Stati. They urge the authorities to immediately cease all illegal arrests.

The European Parliament is concerned about the illegal and arbitrary arrests and the widespread violations of the human rights of arrested persons, in particular the right to life, the right not to be subjected to physical abuse, torture or inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, the right to freedom and safety, the right to a fair trial and the right to freedom of assembly, association and expression, and about the fact that these abuses are still continuing. At least 310 people were arrested and detained.

The resolution condemns the campaign of harassment launched against journalists, civil society representatives and opposition parties, involving in particular arrests and expulsions of journalists, interruption of access to websites and TV stations, broadcasting of propaganda on public channels and denial to opposition representatives of access to the public media.

Involvement of EU country unfounded

No serious indications or evidence have come to light on the basis of which any EU Member State could be accused of being responsible for the violent events of recent weeks. MEPs request immediate and substantial proof in support of any allegation by the Moldovan Government concerning the supposedly criminal actions of the protesters and the involvement of foreign governments.

Parliament deplores the decision to expel the Romanian Ambassador and to introduce a visa obligation for citizens of that European Union Member State. MEPs call on the authorities to restore the visa-free regime for Romanian citizens. The Council and the Commission should review of the EU's visa system and relax the conditions for granting visas to Moldovan citizens, especially the financial conditions, says the resolution.

Voting by Moldovan citizens living abroad

The resolution deplores the fact that the Moldovan Government made no efforts to facilitate voting by Moldovan citizens living abroad, in line with the suggestions of the Venice Commission. Between 500 000 and 1 million Moldovans live abroad and were able to take part in the ballot. The breakaway region of Transnistria prevented the participation of a large number of Moldovan citizens in the elections

More EU involvement needed

The EU must do everything in its power to offer Moldovans a truly European future. Political forces in Moldova and Moldova's partners should not to take advantage of the current instability to divert Moldova from its European course.

The EP calls on the Commission to submit to it a detailed report on the use of all European funds in the Republic of Moldova, with special focus on the funds allocated to good governance and democratic development.

MEPs also call on the Council and the Commission to strengthen the mission of the EU Special Representative to the Republic of Moldova.

REF. : 20090506IPR55246

E.U. Looks East With Increasing Anxiety

The New York Times


May 5, 2009

By STEPHEN CASTLE

BRUSSELS — Once seen as a means of drawing countries away from Russia’s sphere of influence, a European Union plan to strengthen its bond with six former Soviet republics now has a more urgent purpose: to stabilize a volatile region.

On Thursday, Prague will play host to a summit meeting designed to embrace the six states — Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova — under a plan called the Eastern Partnership. The original goal was to present the 27-nation European Union bloc as an alternative to Moscow as a regional power center by offering greater engagement on economic and political issues.

But political instability and deteriorating economies in some of these states has alarmed powers in the West, especially Germany, and intensified concern that the East-West divide will only deepen if troubled countries fall back into alignment with Russia.

“There are new priorities on the agenda which were not so obvious last year,” said Nicu Popescu, a research fellow for the European Council on Foreign Relations, “including the need to stabilize these countries, which are moving from one crisis to another. The focus is less on structural adjustments or institution-building and more on crisis management.”

In a sign of how seriously Germany views the situation, its chancellor, Angela Merkel, has decided to attend the summit meeting. Her presence gives vital political heft to hopes that the E.U. can shape events in the region.

Neither Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, nor Britain’s prime minister, Gordon Brown, have yet confirmed their attendance and both are likely to send ministers rather than traveling to Prague.

Last week the German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, highlighted the deteriorating conditions in Ukraine, noting that “the economic situation is worsening on a daily basis.” There is, he added, a “blockade at the top of level of the government” and the deadlock is “heightened by tensions between Ukraine and Russia.”

Moldova is another country in turmoil. After riots last month, President Vladimir Voronin ordered mass arrests and accused Romania — an E.U. member — of trying to overthrow his government.

The organizers of the summit meeting have scheduled a discussion of the impact of the financial meltdown on Eastern Europe, said Jan Sliva, a spokesman for the Czech government.

But even the Czechs’ role as host has complicated the E.U.’s efforts to embrace its eastern neighbors. It was the Czech Republic, which holds the rotating E.U. presidency, that pushed the initiative, but the country’s credibility is undermined by the fact that its government has fallen, and its prime minister, Mirek Topolonek, will be chairing his last E.U. event before he loses his job.

The Eastern Partnership was conceived as a response to critics of the E.U.’s foreign policy who argue that the bloc devotes too much of its diplomacy and economic resources to areas of the globe where it has little clout, notably the Middle East. They say the E.U. has better prospects of exerting influence in a region on its borders that includes several nations, including Ukraine, that have ambitions to join the bloc.

Watching from the sidelines is a wary Russian government that has grown steadily more skeptical about the E.U.’s intentions. Last week its foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, said he was concerned that the E.U. may be about to meddle in a region that Moscow considers its backyard.

As Russia’s opposition to the scheme has become more vocal, its close ally Belarus has become more cautious about the Eastern Partnership. Over the last nine months the E.U. made several efforts to engage with Aleksandr G. Lukashenko, Belarus’s president, despite his poor human rights record, and even lifted a ban against his obtaining a visa. But, in March, Mr. Lukashenko postponed a meeting with a senior E.U. official and he is unlikely to attend the summit meeting Thursday.

President Voronin of Moldova is not expected in Prague either.

Though nations like Belarus stand to gain from more favorable trade or visa policies, the Eastern Partnership offers little new to Ukraine, which is already negotiating closer economic and political ties with the E.U. The total budget for the partnership program is modest, €600 million, or about $800 million, and only €350 million of that is new cash.

Aside from being an anchor for the meeting, Ms. Merkel’s presence underlines Germany’s growing alarm at the deteriorating political situation on Europe’s eastern borders.

The rivalry in Ukraine between President Viktor A. Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia V. Tymoshenko had a direct impact on the E.U. in January when it complicated a dispute between Moscow and Kiev that disrupted gas supplies to European countries.

Mr. Popescu, of the European Council on Foreign Relations, said that even if the E.U. scales down ambitions to dilute Moscow’s influence, it certainly wants to avoid a situation where Russia ends up exerting greater power in the region.

Despite Ukraine’s stated desire to join the E.U., it remains a divided country politically, with many voters in the East looking more toward Moscow than to the West.

“If Ukraine joins with Russia’s sphere of influence,” added Mr. Popescu, “we are also more likely to see a bipolar Europe rather than one trying to integrate with the EU.”

Home

* World
* U.S.
* N.Y. / Region
* Business
* Technology
* Science
* Health
* Sports
* Opinion
* Arts
* Style
* Travel
* Jobs
* Real Estate
* Automobiles
* Back to Top

Copyright 2009

* Privacy Policy
* Search
* Corrections
* RSS
* First Look
* Help
* Contact Us
* Work for Us
* Site Map