Moscow can never create a Google, an Apple, a BBC, a Siemens: for that, it would need the rule of law and all the open democratic structures that support it

Sir Robert Owen’s languid upper-class vowels and baggy London clubland suit don’t capture the indefatigable essence of the man. He represents the best of the British tradition of the rule of law. His report into the circumstances of the death of Alexander Litvinenko released last week is a classic of the genre – scrupulously evidence-based, impartial and judicious. It is what a rule-of-law society should produce.

Litvinenko, Owen judged, was murdered in London by the Russian government because, as an ex-KGB agent, and later of FSB (the KGB’s successor), he had become an influential, vocal and effective opponent of a profoundly corrupt state security structure. A book by Litvinenko – Lubyanka Criminal Group – presented evidence that the Russian security service is deeply entwined with organised crime, both in Russia and elsewhere in Europe, including with the mafia. In a second, if less convincing, book he claimed that the Russian services colluded in blowing up apartment blocks and blamed Chechen terrorists.

After fleeing Russia in 2000, Litvinenko had gone on to help not just Britain’s MI6, but the Spanish and Italian security services in unmasking FSB involvement in criminal activity.

But it was only after Russia’s passing of the 2006 Extremism Law, justifying extra-territorial killings of Russians making allegedly libellous statements about the government, that Vladimir Putin was able to hit back at a man who, days before he was poisoned, had accused him of being both a paedophile and the man behind the assassination of the journalist Anna Politkovskya.

Owen is judicious. The polonium-210 that poisoned Litvinenko could only come from a state nuclear reactor and could only be given to the FSB with the go-ahead of Putin or his circle.So strong is the back-covering culture within the FSB that the director would only give the go-ahead for his arms-length operatives to kill Litvinenko with Putin’s backing. The need to get rid of Litvinenko was acute. But unable to interview either of the two men who travelled to London allegedly to murder their quarry, Owen can arrive at only a qualified conclusion: “The FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by… President Putin.”

The events are horrifying enough – any Londoner could have been harmed – but perhaps even more telling is the window it provides into today’s Russia. This is a world of routine contract killings, always deniable because they are delivered at arm’s length, by a state security service intertwined with clandestine gangsters.

The KGB was the security wing of the Soviet Communist party. The FSB is Putin’s personalised security wing. Its job is to wreck the reputations – and even kill – all those who challenge the regime. Not even China mandates the killing of its nationals anywhere in the world if they say something that President Xi Jinping considers libellous. This is the law not even of a communist dictatorship, but of a tsar. The reaction to Litvinenko’s death in Moscow was carelessly gleeful: a traitor had received his just comeuppance.

Owen’s brief biographies of the key actors in the drama are also telling; they are fierce Russian nationalists passionate to avenge what they portray as cumulative slights from the west. Concepts such as the rule of law, checked and balanced government, democracy and an autonomous, self-governing civil society are western viruses that will only contaminate the homeland and its capacity to do what it needs to extend Russia’s proper place in the world. In this climate, the FSB works with any tool to hand.

The rule of law – impartial judgments that can be referred to independent higher courts based on the balance of evidence around clear jurisprudential principles and deliberatively legislated democratic law – is the cornerstone not merely of liberty, but of prosperity and our civilisation. Britain is blessed because it is a rule-of-law society. Russia, for all its military power and abundant resources, is damned because it is not.

The growing evidence is that economies such as Russia’s or China’s can use command-and-control mechanisms to grow into middle-income per head countries. But to become high-income per capita countries is infinitely harder. All the energies of civil society and workforces have to be harnessed to create great self-standing organisations. These, by developing their own purpose and cultures, can marshal the immense amounts of information that are at the core of the modern economy – and then produce at scale.

Russia can use command-and-control economics to create a Gazprom. It can never create a Google, an Apple, a BBC, a Siemens or even the Anglo-Saxon rock’n’roll culture. For that, it would need the rule of law and all the open democratic structures that support it.

Yet, we can’t be complacent: current British political culture is very feeble on the rule of law. There was a Litvinenko inquiry only because the government lost a high court case opposing it, fearing the international ramifications (giving offence to Russia). Its response has been beneath feeble. But then with honourable exceptions – Michael Gove, Dominic Grieve, Ken Clarke – today’s mainstream conservatism is more interested in entrenching permanent Tory dominance of the House of Common than in acknowledging the crucial role of checks and balances in upholding a rule-of-law society.

It will neuter the second chamber, write European courts out of any role in the British legal system, gerrymander the number of seats in the Commons, make Scottish MPs second class and emasculate the BBC. In its aims to Torify Britain, it is more Putinesque that it cares to acknowledge – and British civil society can be vulnerable just like Russia’s.

Meanwhile, Labour has no firmer grip – New Labour flouted international law to invade Iraq and its Corbynite successors share a Putinesque worldview that the pernicious west is the source of all evil. For Corbyn, the rule of law is an ideological concept, the handmaiden of capitalism, and liberation movements worldwide are right to distrust it in their struggle against western imperialism or its surrogates. To possess military power capable of defending us and other rule-of law societies is wrong as a matter of principle. Putin’s gangsters and contract killers can be trusted never to threaten us; Trident is an expensive bauble.

Alexander Litvinenko, dying in agony, left a last letter cursing Putin and declaring his pride in becoming a British citizen – because of what Britain stands for. Sir Robert Owen has done more than uncover the truth. He has offered a fierce reminder of the importance of the rule of law. Let’s hope it is heeded across our political culture.

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/24/litvinenko-murder-putin-russia

Moscow (AFP) – To reach the gigantic statue of Vladimir Lenin that overlooks Moscow’s October Square, pedestrians can stroll down streets named after the Bolshevik revolutionary’s wife or mother, or cross Lenin Avenue that intersects with a road named after his brother.

More than a quarter of a century has passed since the fall of Communism but reminders of the Soviet Union’s founding father Lenin — who died on January 21, 1924 — are still easy to find.

Yet the man himself seems increasingly to mean little to many people in Russia, the cradle of his revolution.

Lenin monuments, busts and eponymous streets commemorating the leader of the 1917 October Revolution still dot cityscapes across the country and his body still lies embalmed for tourists to visit in the mausoleum on the capital’s iconic Red Square.

“On July 19, 1918, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin met in this building with the party members from factories of the Zamoskvorechye neighbourhood,” reads a plaque in the centre of the Russian capital.

Down the street, another plaque reminds passersby that the Communist leader addressed workers from the Yaroslavl and Vladimir regions from a balcony above their heads.

And Moscow’s sprawling subway system — which carries an average of seven million passengers every day — also officially bears Lenin’s name.

– ‘Relics from our history’ –

A man takes a picture of Soviet artist Aleksandr Gerasimov‘s painting “Lenin on the Tribune” at the  …

In some other former Soviet republics, most prominently Ukraine, many statues of Lenin have been dismantled, toppled or vandalised since the fall of Communism.

But for ordinary Russians the lingering presence of the Communist leader among the advertising hoardings and shopping malls of their consumerist society appears to stir mixed opinions — or more often just indifference.

Every year on the key Communist holidays such as May 1 or the anniversary of the revolution on November 7 dwindling groups of ageing supporters gather with portraits of Lenin at monuments to him across the country.

But while some who are old enough to remember the Soviet epoch view these vestiges of another era with nostalgia, others look on them with resentment.

“These monuments bother me,” said 60-year-old Muscovite Viktor Dzyadko, whose hostility toward the Soviet revolutionary is tangible. “They should all be sent to some museum.”

For the younger generation, who have grown up outside the Soviet system, the presence of Lenin is often little more than a historical oddity.

“During the Soviet era, all these monuments had an ideological role but now they are just relics from our history,” said Alexander Polyakovsky, a 20-year-old student.

Subway passengers walk past a huge portrait of the Soviet Union founder Vladimir Lenin in a vestibul …

“We are witnessing growing indifference,” sociologist Lev Gudkov, the head of independent pollster Levada Centre, told AFP.

“Lenin does not represent anything to the young generations, who only have a vague idea that he was the founder of the Soviet state.”

In a poll conducted by the Levada centre about views of Lenin in 2015 only five percent of people said they thought his ideas will influence people in the future.

– ‘Atomic bomb’ –

In the heady days of the early nineties during the collapse of the Soviet Union, some of the key symbolic statues of Soviet leaders — most famously secret police founder Felix Dzerzhinsky outside the KGB headquarters — were toppled.

But as the new country plunged into chaos, Russia’s first president Boris Yeltsin — often keen not to alienate the large chunk of the population that looked back on the Soviet era with fondness — left most of the Lenin statues untouched.

President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB agent whose rule has seen the revival of Soviet traditions and controls, followed in Yeltsin’s footsteps and just let Lenin be.

That includes leaving the embalmed remains of the leader on display outside the Kremlin, despite polls showing that the majority of people are in favour of finally saying goodbye Lenin and burying his body.

But that does not mean that Putin, who has surrounded himself with ex-Soviet security agents and been accused of playing down the crimes of Stalinism, is harking back to the ideals of Lenin.

“Allowing your rule to be guided by ideas is right, but only when that idea leads to the right results, not like it did with Vladimir Ilich,” Putin said in a rare reference to Lenin on the anniversary of his death.

“In the end that idea led to the fall of the Soviet Union,” he added.

“They planted an atomic bomb under the building called Russia and it later exploded. We did not need a global revolution.”

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/lenin-watches-over-increasingly-indifferent-russians-064534100.html

Jan. 24, 2016 18:51

It’s unfortunate that much of the international writing about Ukraine is done by people based in Moscow. I have noted elsewhere that this peculiarity can lead to Ukraine not being given fair representation because whether they like it or not the international correspondents resident there are all exposed to the constant drip, drip, drip of disinformation stories hitting them from various sides.

Whether it is at the Dacha BBQ with uncle Vanya, or whether it is listening to opinions from local friends and colleagues which are more formed by the full on information assault, Ukrainian affairs can get painted in all sorts of weird ways.

That an important and developing and reforming nation of 45 million people right on the borders of Europe deserves to have more dedicated journalists seems obvious to me, but, that Ukraine can be done a disservice by Moscow-based journalists is the reality, sometimes dangerous, that we are faced with.I have to say that one of the Moscow-based correspondents I most admire is Shaun Walker of The Guardian.

I often find myself agreeing with his analysis, I find his observations to be generally accurate and often the way that he puts them across can be quite funny, I disagree with him from time to time but have found him open to being reasonably challenged. In my last exchange with him he tweeted photos of Azov Regiment fighters inside Boryspil Airport, apparently placed there by non-other than Interior Minister Arsen Avakov himself, to arrest non-other than super-oligarch Dmytro Firtash.

My simple response to that tweet was; “Bullshit!”

At the end of that exchange, I offered to buy Shaun a beer next time he’s in Kyiv, because as it turned out he was largely correct.You see, from my perspective, there were a few things wrong with the proposed scenario. Number one was just the mention of the name Azov.

The go-to bad guy for the Russian media was Azov for a very long time, their star rose as the juggernaut of nonsense surrounding the much fabled “Pravy Sector” ran out of steam and credibility. I automatically start out treating claims about either group with a pinch of salt. But, really, that the Interior Minister would choose to involve this group in such a high profile arrest when he has so many other forces at his disposal? That just can’t be true. That members of Azov would be permitted, by a minister, to take weapons airside? Rubbish.

For a variety of reasons this event looked to be completely made up. I owe Shaun a beer because in fact this was not made up. The only open question is whether they were Azov or some other grouping, they had no insignia, but, really, the minister did indeed ignore all the other more professional law enforcement bodies that are under his command and allow a group of men with automatic weapons to form a reception committee for Firtash. Mind boggling. But true.

My respect for Shaun now well-stated, here follows an analysis of some comments in his recent article.

Continue reading at: http://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/paul-niland-a-curious-compendium-of-disinformation-406590.html?utm_content=bufferdad52&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The Russian attempt at creating a Crimea land-bridge seems to be underway.

Russian forces seized an oil rig in the Black Sea. There is a buildup of Russian forces near Mariupol as well as in Crimea. There is an increase in provocations in Odessa. Now we’re seeing Moldova stirring up. The only thing we have not seen is an attempt to recon Zmiinyi Island” in the Black Sea, which is considered key to seizing the sea access to Odessa, Ukraine.

 You heard it here, folks.  Here is another attempt at provocation, Russian style.

</end editorial>

---

(Translated by my Chrome browser)

The Moldovan authorities recently were not allowed into the country about a dozen journalists. Against the backdrop of mass protests Chisinau is trying to do everything to prevent the flow of information that did not correspond to its official line.

РИА Новости http://ria.ru/mediawars_freedom_of_speech/20160125/1364758205.html#ixzz3yFSgEcL8

Russia is actively engaging in political warfare inside Latvia.

Not only is Russia actively sponsoring activism inside Latvia, they are generating pro-Russian propaganda which is supposed to appear of Latvian origin.

Political Warfare was in a lecture given yesterday by Dr. J. Michael Waller, while we were visiting Ft. Bragg in North Carolina. During his lecture on Political Warfare, it struck me that every single point of political warfare is what Russia is doing today.  During our return trip to Washington DC last evening, when I asked Dr. Waller about the similarities, he said that was because most of the points of his lecture had originated from Soviet defectors who were taught to do exactly that.  I hope to have more details here soon.  In the meantime, many of our leaders in Congress ignorantly plunge ahead.  I’m still unsure if the ignorance is deliberate or because nobody told them…

Russia blames the West for what Russia does the worst.

</end editorial>

Latvia-based OCCRP partner Re:Baltica has published a series of investigations on right-wing propaganda and misinformation about Latvian media which reporters found originated from Russia.

Vladimir Linderman, Latvian pro-Kremlin activist, The series is part of a two-year investigation tracing Russia’s influence networks.

Previously, Re:Baltica exposed Russian funding of Latvian non-governmental organizations who promote a Kremlin-friendly world view. The new series focuses on links between conservative organizations and propaganda originating in Russia, which promotes Russia as the defender of “traditional values” in the Baltics against the “dark forces” of Western liberalism, as represented by  the United Nations, the World Health Organization (WHO), philanthropist George Soros, “corporations” and “the state.”

The reporters highlighted the changes in legislation in Russia that mirrored misinformation campaigns endorsed in Latvian media.

For example, when the Russian government legislated a fine for schools promoting homosexuality among minors in 2013, around the same time the Latvian “Protect Our Children” movement wanted to forbid “gay propaganda” in schools, according to re:Baltica.

The new series  identifies the organizations claiming to be Latvia’s “moral guardians,” including parent groups like “Kin”, “Let’s Protect Our Children,” “Family” and “Our Children.” Some of them lobby for changes in the laws to prohibit the “propaganda” of homosexuality, oppose adoption by foreign families, and fight what they view as the excessive power of the nation’s social services in line with Russian policies on the same issues.

“Let’s Protect Our Children” is led by three pro-Kremlin activists, including Vadims Gilis and ex-National Bolshevik leader Vladimir Linderman. Linderman is largely seen by Latvians as a Kremlin proxy, reported re:Baltica.

The misinformation spread by these organizations on Latvian media include outlandish claims that the WHO teaches kindergarten children to masturbate and that Norwegians are pedophiles.

The Re:Baltica series comes at a time when Russia has been actively building its links with European right-wing partiessince 2009 and France’s Front National’s Marine Le Pen admits to taking Russian funding, according to the French NGO, Mediapart.

In an opinion segment of the series, Re:Baltica claims that Russian propaganda hailing President Vladimir Putin the “defender of family” on hot topics of gays, desecrated churches and abused children helps Putin’s administration mobilize support while distracting Russians from other issues including: the brutal crackdown of the 2011-2013 Russian protests, the theft of Russia’s natural resources and the laundering of illicit profits to the West.

Kremlin propaganda targets Germany’s refugee weak spot

Published: 27 Jan 2016 12:30 GMT+01:00

Russian TV news has begun questioning Berlin officials’ stories about a young woman who was pushed under a U-Bahn train last week, adding to a media broadside that has Russian-German citizens in uproar against the government.

Broadcaster Channel 5 reported on Tuesday that the man who shoved the 20-year-old to her death was a refugee from Iran.

The report attempts to draw a link between the perpetrator and migrants allegedly behind sexual assaults in Cologne and elsewhere in Germany on New Year’s Eve.

“Another German citizen was the victim of yet another refugee,” the broadcaster’s website alleges.

Authorities push back

The problem? Prosecutors in Berlin have already released a large amount of information about Hamin E., the man who pushed the young woman – and he has lived his whole life in Germany.

Hamin, an Iranian national, was born in Germany, has always lived in Hamburg and has a history of violence, drug abuse and mental illness, prosecutors told The Local last week.

The report from Channel 5 – part of the National Media Group, seen as close to the government of President Vladimir Putin – is just the latest in a series of stories questioning German authorities that have inflamed opinion among Russian-speaking Germans in recent days.

On Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov backed a TV news report alleging that a 13-year-old girl had been abducted and repeatedly raped by two migrants – a version of events the Berlin police say is simply wrong.

Protestations by German authorities haven’t convinced Russian-Germans, who turned out in their thousands over the weekend to demonstrate about the case.

‘Propaganda machinery’

Alexander Clarkson, Lecturer in German and European Studies at King’s College London, told The Local that the media focus on refugees in Germany is mainly aimed at Russians at home.

“By portraying Germany as a society in chaos because of migration, where Russian speakers are threatened, the Kremlin propaganda machinery projects the image to the Russian public that things are as bad ‘over there’ in the EU as in Russia,” Clarkson said.

“By claiming that everywhere is in crisis, the Kremlin can both discourage Russians from travelling to Germany in particular as well as deflect any responsibility for the economic and social crisis it finds itself in.”

Meanwhile, Dr Stefan Meister, Russia programme leader at the German Council on Foreign Relations, said that the report and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent friendly interview in the Bild newspaper were signs of a double-pronged strategy inside Germany by the Russian government.

“The Russian leadership has an interest in getting rid of the sanctions [imposed by the West after its illegal annexation of Crimea],” Meister said. “[The Bild interview] was a charm offensive aimed at the EU.”

Chancellor Angela Merkel, along with President Francois Hollande of France, has been at the core of a united EU front against Russia over its land-grab in Ukraine.

“[Putin] wants to say we’re ready to talk and make compromises, the sharp rhetoric is gone.

“But Russia aims to weaken the EU, and the refugee crisis is an opportunity to increase internal political pressure on the German and EU governments,” Meister said.

“This isn’t random, it’s part of a bigger strategy to manipulate the information space in Germany and the EU, to disquiet the population.”

Not all Russian-Germans created equal

But while large numbers of Russian-speakers in Germany demonstrated over the alleged rape of Lisa F. over the weekend, Clarkson cautioned against lumping all Russian-Germans together.

Middle-class Russian-Germans, Russian Jews and Russian speaking Ukrainians in Germany consume more German media and are less inclined to believe the Kremlin’s propaganda.

But they often stand aloof from the mostly working-class people who joined the protests, the London-based academic argues.

Meanwhile, Ukrainians in Germany are alienated both by Russian anti-Ukrainian rhetoric and Germany’s failure to stop Russia doing as it pleases in their home country.

The protests “demonstrate how failures by the German state to integrate migrants from Turkey, the former Yugoslavia and the post-Soviet space in the 1990s have left a bitter legacy,” Clarkson said.

“Perhaps that is the key lesson to be learned when faced with the challenges of integrating a new wave of migrants and refugees in 2016.”

Source: http://www.thelocal.de/20160127/kremlin-propaganda-targets-germanys-refugee-weak-spot

The backdoor accounts were named Black Widow and Batman

Russia is taking yet another hit, in the wallet and in bragging rights, right where they need it most.

Russian rocket engines will no longer be used in the US and Russia can no longer brag they are dominant in that field.

Oil prices are down, now income from Russian rocket engines is fading away.

Too bad, Russia. You reap what you sow.

Putin may be gone in 3…  2…

</end editorial>

McCain, McCarthy team up to ban Russian rocket engines

By Kristina Wong – 01/27/16 04:43 PM EST

Two Republican powerhouses teamed up Wednesday to introduce a bill that would stop U.S. military reliance on Russian-made rocket engines for its national security space launches.

The measure, sponsored by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (Ariz.) and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), would repeal a provision in the 2016 government spending bill that allows unlimited purchases of the engines.

McCain had successfully limited further purchases of the RD-180 rockets in the annual defense policy bill, but a provision in the year-end omnibus spending package reversed it.

McCain argues that continuing to purchase the engines, which cost about $30 million each, would reward “Vladimir Putin and his cronies with a windfall of hundreds of millions of dollars.”

“How do you justify such action? The American taxpayers should be outraged to learn that some U.S. senators want American taxpayers to continue subsidizing Russian aggression and comrade-capitalism?” McCain said in a speech on the Senate floor.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in March 2014 provided momentum for banning further use of the engines and purchases of more Russian-made helicopters for the Afghan air force.

McCarthy, in a statement, argued that the U.S. should not be relying on Russia for space launches.

“Placing such a critical aspect of our future in the hands of a country that names the United States as a threat is not only foolish, it undermines the ingenuity happening across the country,” he said.

The defense policy bill’s ban on the Russian-made engines set up a fight between United Launch Alliance — the company that currently uses the Russian engines for its rockets — and SpaceX, which wants to use its own rockets.

Two companies — Aerojet Rocketdyne and Blue Origin — is vying to manufacture the U.S.-made engines for ULA.

“Securing access to space is a national security priority and essential to leading in a 21st century economy,”  McCarthy said. “Our policies should facilitate a competitive environment that provides the incentive to scale each component required to access space.”

McCain in a speech on the Senate floor on Wednesday blamed the provision’s last-minute inclusion in the massive $1.1 trillion government spending bill on Senate Appropriations Committee member Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), a supporter of ULA.

McCain said Shelby also appropriated $225 million in the spending bill for a ship the Navy did not need, in order to benefit a company in his state.

“Sometimes we wonder why the Americans are angry, why they’re supporting Trump or Sanders or some outsider. All they have to do is look at this process we went through with the 2,000-page bill,” he said.

Source: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/267246-mccain-mccarthy-team-up-to-ban-russian-rocket-engines

The inside word is that Michael Lumpkin, newly named head of counter-ISIS messaging by the US Department of State, is briefing, advocating the creation of a “National Communications Strategy”.

According to the Small Wars Journal

A former Navy SEAL and current Defense Department official is being called on to revamp the federal government’s effort to counter ISIS and other groups’ recruitment propaganda.

“The defining characteristics of [special operations forces] — agility, precision and the effective use of intelligence — are exactly what is needed to address this challenge,” said Michael Lumpkin, in his final speech as assistant secretary of defense for special operations/low intensity conflict. President Obama has tapped him to lead the new Global Engagement Center at the Department of State.

His task is to rethink the government’s effort to counter violent extremist propaganda…

“The center will focus on empowering and enabling partners, both governmental and nongovernmental, to speak out against these groups to provide an alternative to Daesh’s nihilistic vision,” he said, referring to another name for ISIS. “The reality is that the U.S government is not always the most effective messenger to contest this propaganda.” The most credible messengers come from within the region, he added…

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/former-special-operator-to-lead-state-departments-counter-isis-messaging-cente

On the surface this appears to fit exactly with a proposal by the late Dr. Dan Kuehl and retired Army Colonel Dennis Murphy, entitled “The Case for a National Information Strategy“.

I will keep you informed as this situation develops.

I’m not quite sure anyone takes anything Russia says seriously anymore.

#RussiaLies

</end editorial>

Russia Argues That Its Only Obligation To Ukraine Is Not To Nuke It, Experts React Swiftly

The Russian Embassy in the United Kingdom tried to pretend Tuesday that Moscow couldn’t have violated the Budapest Memorandum because that agreement only contained one provision: not to attack Ukraine with nuclear weapons.

But in fact, as commentators on Twitter noted right away, the Budapest Memorandum contains six provisions, which are plainly visible to anyone who visits the site linked by the Russian Embassy and scrolls down.

In other words, the Russian Embassy assumed that it could fool readers into thinking that there was only one provision because the screenshot just showed the first half of the webpage.

It didn’t work.

Twitter users linked to the English translation of the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1994 by Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The purpose of the agreement was to reassure Ukraine that if the country gave up its nuclear arsenal, it would retain its territorial integrity.

Users lambasted the embassy for trying to pass off painfully obvious falsehoods.

“Thanks for demonstrating your lack of intelligence. Just wondering if idiocy was an employment requirement for your position,” one user wrote.

Noted independent journalist Eliot Higgins also tweeted, “I think the @RussianEmbassy needs to explain themselves over this one.”
Brookings Institution scholar Steven Pifer wrote, “Lavrov claim that #Russia did not violate Budapest Memorandum because it did not threaten Ukraine with nuclear weapons is totally absurd.”

Ariana Gic Perry, who edits a journal on Russian affairs, said that “Russian FM Lavrov needs a “Budapest Memorandum for Dummies“. So here is a ‘dumbed down’ version just for him.”

The first and most obvious point of the memorandum is that the three countries agreed to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.”

The second point is an agreement to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.” While the provision noted by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov does exist in the document, it is listed by the Council on Foreign Relations as the fifth point.

Lavrov delivered his remarks in response to a question from the UNIAN news agency, which is based in Kiev, Ukraine. Russia is widely held to have repeatedly violated the agreement repeatedly, a point implied by a reporter, who raised the issue of Russian involvement in the conflict in eastern Ukraine and the clear annexation of Crimea.

But according to Lavrov, the Budapest Memorandum “contains only one obligation – i.e. not to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. No one has made any threats to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine.”

Source: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/27/russia-argues-that-its-only-obligation-to-ukraine-is-not-to-nuke-it-experts-react-swiftly/

Soft Power: Reality and Myth

By the beginning of 2016, Russian experts came around to the opinion that Russia had not been applying enough effort to capitalize on information technology (including through public diplomacy) in order to promote its image abroad. Two solutions have been offered to the question of “what to do?” The first involves increased financing for relevant programs and funds.The second suggests learning to work not only with governments, but with civil society as well.

I would venture to suggest a third possible solution. The relatively poor performance of Russia in terms of soft power has not been due to insufficient funding, an incorrect strategy, or the incompetence of PR experts. The main reason appears to be the oversized assessment of the role of soft power in international relations. Meanwhile, the experience of the last decade has shown that soft power works if and only the other party is willing to accept it. If there is no such willingness, the most sophisticated mechanisms information technology will be ineffective. Given this important, though unpleasant, observation, it makes sense to revise Russia’s policy in the area of ​​soft power.

Leo Tolstoy versus Joseph Nye

Nye Joseph [1], denotes achieving strategic goals through non-coercive, cultural and ideological mechanisms. Joseph Nye to According and his followers, an attractive image of the country can enlist sympathies in public opinion in other countries.

However, the positive image of a country does not mean that the elites of other countries will avoid conflict with it. Leo Tolstoy described exactly this situation in his novel “War and Peace.” In the beginning of the 19th century, the Russian nobility spoke French better than Russian, received education in France and held real estate abroad. Many representatives of the Russian upper class admired Napoleon Bonaparte. However, the cult of France did not prevent Russia from waging a series of ruthless wars against Napoleonic France. Russian generals projected military operations against France in French.It is hard to imagine a more striking example of the limits of soft power.

The history of colonial empires confirms the correctness of Tolstoy’s observations. Elites from British colonies received their education in the educational institutions of Great Britain.However, during the collapse of the British Empire in the 1940s, nearly no one wanted the colonial status to survive. Moreover, it was not traditionally problem-plagued India that led this process, but dominions with the Anglo-Saxon elite, namely Australia and New Zealand.

What is more, the use of soft power technology in various countries has produced different effects. France under Charles de Gaulle (1958-1969) made its policy retaining control over the former colonies by educating their elites. To achieve this goal, the International Organization of La Francophonie was set up in 1970 to preserve and spread the French language and French culture. The position of the latter has been kept in the countries of North and West Africa: the elite of those countries willingly maintain political and cultural links with their former mother country. At the same time, the French language and French culture have completely lost their influence in Indochina (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia). Only a small group of the older generation that was educated during the French Empire still speaks French.

The experts this content share Many opinion that Russia has abandoned the Soviet policy of shaping the minds of the elite in Eastern Europe. But before World War II, the countries of Eastern Europe – from Finland to Yugoslavia – had a particular dislike of the Soviet Union and formed an anti-Soviet “sanitary cordon.” The burst of Russophobia in the late 1980s testified to the fact that the Soviet Union had failed to alter the anti-Soviet feelings that were prevalent in those countries.

Curious George the question itself. Hiring: a story about the culture of the country and the effectiveness of its political institutions will cause a wave of sympathy for her. However, the reaction can be totally different – from envy to the tide of hatred, as has often happened in the history.

Limits of soft power

The use of soft power has natural limits. To put it tentatively, we can single out three such limitations that nullify the effect of soft power.

First one is The geopolitical. Small and medium-sized countries will always be wary of a large and powerful country. At best, their elites will always look for something to counterbalance the cultural and ideological influence exerted by other great powers and, at worst, will reject the powerful neighbor’s cultural policy, perceiving it as a new form of imperialism. It is hardly a coincidence that the strongest Russophobia is peculiar to the countries of Eastern Europe, while the strongest anti-American sentiments are witnessed in Latin America.

Second limitation is The historical. Some feud between The nations has such deep roots that putting an end to it through soft power instruments is hardly possible [2]. Soft power can do nothing in a country that forges its identity on the hatred for another country or its people.How much should the Soviet Union have invested in Germany in 1934 to make the latter pro-Soviet? It is obvious that nothing could have changed an already established mind-set.

Third limitation is The cultural.Different nations and societies assess their role in history in different ways. Russian political scientist T. Alexeyeva rightly notes that Russian society has never had a sense of grandeur about itself. Has always considered Russia itself to be a “catch-up country,” seeking the approval of those who “lead the way.” [3] Going into opposition towards other nations has often taken painful and aggressive shape in Germany and Japan.Russia has never had its own Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who claimed that the Absolute Idea could self-actualize only in the German world, and that the history had reached its end. Has never had Russia its own Paul Rohrbach, who believed that Germany was surrounded by “unhistorical peoples.” [4]Accordingly, the ability to adopt soft power appears to be quite peculiar to each country.

These limitations result in a circumscription of the successful application of soft power. Soft power is a tool for enlisting the sympathies of undecided people, rather than of making enemies change their mind.

From Joseph Nye to Lev Gumilyev?

This understanding of soft power was offered not by J. Nye, but by Soviet historian and ethnologist L. Gumilyov. Coined the term He “complementarity” as “the principle of individuals’ subconscious liking each other that draws the line between friends and foes.” [5]

Accordingly, there are four types of complementarities:

• Positive as a subconscious feeling of mutual sympathy;
• Negative as a subconscious feeling of mutual antipathy;
• Zero as a feeling of indifference to each other;
• Asymmetrical, when only one of the interaction participants is positive-minded in relation to the other.

Here are a few interesting examples. Since the end of the 18th century, the Russian elite had a strong prejudice in favor of what was French: the desire for Russian-French bilingualism and for an assimilation of French culture. (The attempt of Peter I to make Dutch culture the behavioral criterion ended in failure: the Russian nobility did not come to like either the Netherlands or Dutch.) However, Russophilia has never been widespread in France. The French elite have never aspired to be Russian-French bilinguals, or to gain profound knowledge of Russian culture.

Akiyama Masahiro: Japanese Soft Power for Russia

Russian-British relations offer another interesting example.Russia is known for its traditional complaints about Perfidious Albion, while Britain – for its fears of a “barbaric Russian expansion.” As such, Russia and Britain were allies in almost all major wars of the last three centuries (with the exception of the Crimean War). Geopolitical interests – the desire to prevent the establishment of another country’s hegemony in continental Europe – overpowered cultural antipathy.

What to do?

The theory of complementarity allows us to understand why Russia’s policy in the area of ​​soft power is not effective. The focus of Russia’s attention has been placed on countries that have been fundamentally prejudiced against our country. In addition, the Russian World concept works poorly in foreign countries. In contrast to Chinese or Jewish migrants, Russian emigrants, as a rule, do not seek to maintain ties with their historical homeland, and want to quickly integrate into the new society and forget that they are Russian.

Russia should restructure its soft power policy in four directions.

First, it should be recognized that there are countries, in which Russia’s application of soft power will never bear fruit. They include most Anglo-Saxon countries and the countries of Eastern Europe. The attitude towards Russia there is a priori critical, if not openly hostile. Therefore, only a minimum amount of resources should be committed for work with this group of countries.

theeducatorsspinonit.blogspot.ru
Georgi Bovt: Soft power of the Russian word

Second, more attention should be paid to the countries of the far abroad, where attitudes towards Russian are genuinely favorable.Efforts to enlist sympathies of the public opinion in the countries of continental Western Europe (primarily Germany and Italy) and East Asia, including Japan, are sure to bear more fruit. Russian culture is appreciated and welcome there. Israel and Greece with their strong cultural and historical ties with Russia are in the league of their own.However, Moscow’s attention to them leaves much to be desired. For example, the well-known Russia Today television network has no German or Italian departments yet, although Russian broadcasting in these languages ​​would have been appreciated in these countries immensely, given the deliberately downgraded status of their languages ​​in the world today.

Third, Russia should expand cooperation with countries with a neutral complementarity. For states in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Latin America, Russian culture has always been something distant and exotic. But along with this, our interaction is not burdened with a bitter legacy of the past.

Fourth, Russia has no comprehensive strategy for the use of soft power in the CIS countries. Meanwhile, in the post-Soviet space, Russia literally finds itself between a rock and a hard place: it has to preserve the educational space in Russian without arousingsuspicions of neo-imperialism.

Another myth that the theory of complementarity dispels deals with the theory of multi-vector nature. “The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Friend” has not lost edge in politics. However, the reverse principle “The Friend of My Enemy Is My Enemy” is just as true. Russia, like any country, can not be similarly good for all the feuding parties. In some cases, it will have to make a tough choice.

1. Nye J. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. NY: Basic Books, 1990.

Discussion on the TVC with experts INF program “right to vote”.

2. Putting an end to Franco-German enmity became possible only after the occupation of Germany by the allies and the forced implantation there of a new type of education and ideology.

3. Russia in the Modern System of Global Stability. Politics and Perception / Publishing Editor A. Kokoshin, Moscow, LKI Publishers, 2008, p. 171 [in Russian]

4. In this regard, I can not but recollect the old problem of the presence of Soviet troops in Eastern Europe. In my childhood, many adults debated on the Soviet army’s presence in Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Dispersed opinions varied from “Let the people live, as they like” to “The Americans are in Europe too.” But I never heard them say something like “We have the right to rule over the more primitive peoples” or “How dare they discuss our presence. “Citizens of the USSR never reasoned in that manner. Meanwhile, the British have traditionally justified their presence in Asia in exactly that spirit.

5. LN Gumilyov, Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere of Earth. Moscow. DI-DIC Tanais Publishers, 1994, p. 282 [in Russian]

Source: http://russiancouncil.ru/en/inner/?id_4=7167#top-content

Russia has been sending conciliatory signals to Kyiv, but many Ukrainians are skeptical. The general consensus among Ukrainians is that a revival of the old friendship with Moscow will be difficult.

The gigantic metal rainbow still stands on the hilly bank of the Dnipro River in Kyiv. Built during the Soviet era, the monument is a reminder of the “union of Ukraine with Russia” in 1654, when Ukrainian Cossacks sought protection from the czar in Moscow. Since the Russian annexation of the Crimean peninsula and the war in eastern Ukraine, the monument pays tribute to something that no longer exists: friendship between the two countries.

The sculpture shows solidarity between a Russian and a Ukrainian. Today, the base of the monument is adorned by obscene words directed at Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Serhiy Zelowalnik would like to have the arch demolished. “What kind of a friendship is it, when Russian troops have come here with tanks,” defiantly states the former chief architect of the Ukrainian capital in an interview with DW in September 2015. However, authorities in Kyiv have probably decided that the monument – “the yoke” as the people derisively refer to it – should stay there. In the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, however, a column symbolizing Russian-Ukrainian friendship was dismantled in November.

Conciliatory messages from Moscow

Yet the Russian side has been increasingly sending signals of reconciliation to Kyiv. “In the end, normal relations between our countries will certainly be restored,” said Nikolai Patrushev, head of the Russian Security Council and Putin confidante, on Tuesday in a newspaper interview. Similar messages were also heard from the Kremlin and from the Russian foreign ministry. “Moscow is ready for a constructive dialogue with Kyiv.” In the core issues, however, Russia remains adamant: the status of Crimea is not negotiable.

At the end of December a “page of friendship” went online in Russia. The URL already suggests that Russians and Ukrainians are one people (www.we-are-one.ru) and should thus put conflicts aside. The page portrays itself as a platform “without politics and propaganda” and promotes a direct dialogue with citizens. It is unclear who is behind the project – there is no site notice on the website.

War experiences have shaped Ukraine

Russian embassies in Ukraine still encounter great suspicion. “What friendship with Russia?” criticized a popular Ukrainian blogger at the beginning of January. “Look at our men who have lost arms and legs in this war! Stop looking at Russia as a ‘brother nation’.”

Quite a few people in Ukraine agree with the young Kyiv poet, Anastasia Dmytruk. Her poem addressing Russians after the Crimean annexation called “We will never be brothers” is still very popular in the country. The video of Dmytruk reciting the poem has been viewed on YouTube over six million times.

Volodymyr Paniotto does not believe that the Ukrainians will soon love the Russians again. “This is a very difficult process,” said the director of the Kiev International Institute of Sociology (KMIS). Too much damage has been done. According to his institute’s survey, the Ukrainians’ positive attitude toward Russia declined dramatically after the annexation of Crimea: from 78 percent in February 2014 to 30 percent in May 2015.

Hostility and antipathy in Russia

At first glance it may seem all the more surprising that the negative attitude towards the other side in Russia is even more pronounced than in Ukraine. In a recent survey conducted by Moscow’s Levada Center, 59 percent of Russians said their perception of Ukraine is negative. Only 27 percent disagreed. The reason for this was Russian propaganda against Ukraine and the people who live there, says Lev Gudkov, head of the center.

The Moscow sociologist views recent Russian overtures to Ukraine as a tactical maneuver. “I believe that these signals are a game, an attempt to soften the West’s sanctions and the pressure on Russia,” says Gudkov, “it does not help resolve the conflict with Ukraine.”

Source: http://www.dw.com/en/the-vast-gulf-between-russians-and-ukrainians/a-19010637

Russia SUCKS at disinformation.

Yes, Russia does a lot of disinformation, they just do not do it well. The vast majority of Russian disinformation can be disproved in minutes, if not seconds.

I spent two days, recently, with experts at counter-propaganda, at Ft. Bragg, NC. The consensus is that Russia is terrible and even a first year beginner can easily debunk Russian propaganda.

In my best Vietnamese War hoochie-momma voice that stereotypically is associated with women of ill-repute, you know, like Russian whores, “Russia, you so funny.”

#RussiaFail

</end editorial>

By ANDREW RETTMAN

BRUSSELS, 19. JAN, 19:36

The Azov Regiment, a squad of irregular, nationalist fighters in Ukraine, has debunked a YouTube clip threatening terrorist attacks if Dutch people vote No in a referendum on the EU-Ukraine trade treaty.

Andriy Diachenko, Azov’s deputy commander, said in a video statement on Tuesday (19 January) that they did not create the clip, adding that it’s “laughable” because Azov is, in any case, anti-EU integration.

“Azov members, as befits Ukrainian nationalists, have always perceived the idea of ​​Ukraine joining the European Union negatively, instead supporting the idea of a Baltic-Black Sea alternative union,” he said.

He noted that the clip uses replica AK47s instead of real ones.

The Ukrainian foreign ministry also told the Dutch ambassador in Kiev that the clip is fake.

For his part, Kees Verhoeven, a Dutch MP with the social-liberal D66 party, has called for a government investigation into Russian attempts to influence the vote.

The fake clip was published on Monday on a previously unused YouTube account entitled “Patriot” in Ukrainian.

It shows balaclava-clad men with Azov insignia burning a Dutch flag.

Propaganda

Recalling the Paris attacks, one man says: “Dear Dutchmen, don’t you dare go against Ukraine.”

“We’ll find you everywhere. In a movie … in your bedroom, on public transport. We have our guys in the Netherlands and they’re ready to obey any order.”

For Ukrainian journalists and civil society activists, the clip bears the hallmarks of Russian propaganda.

But it caused a stir in Dutch online circles. The popular news blog geenstijl.nl said that even if the clip is fake the risk of an attack by Ukrainian terrorists could be real.

Roman Sohn, a columnist for the Ukrainska Pravda website, told EUobserver: “The video is being used as a ‘foot in the door’ manoeuvre to start a public debate on Nazi fascists in Ukraine to disparage the integration aspirations of Ukrainians.”

“Russian propagandists are very effective,” he added.

“Even when people distrust the authenticity of their message, the message still does harm because people subconsciously embrace the underlying emotional connotations.”

The Ukraine referendum, on 6 April, comes after a petition organised by Dutch NGOs.

It’s non-binding and the EU-Ukraine treaty has already entered into force.

But European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker recently warned that a No could “open the door to a big continental crisis”.

Fake stories

For its part, the Dutch government has said it will campaign for a Yes because the treaty is good for Dutch trade and for European security.

But it’s keeping the campaign low profile in the hope that turnout falls below the threshold of 30 percent.

Meanwhile, the EU foreign service, last year, created a small unit, called East StratCom, to also debunk Russian propaganda.

It publishes a regular review called Disinformation Weekly, which says the latest trend is fake stories purportedly taken from Western media.

One story, shortly after New Year’s Eve, said the BBC had reported that Ukrainian leader Petro Poroshenko had been hospitalised after his wife found him drunk under their Christmas tree.

The BBC never published such a report.

Source: https://euobserver.com/foreign/131908

Law of Armed Conflict, Attribution, and the Challenges of Deterring Cyber-attacks

Joshua Tromp

Introduction

Recent history is full of events demonstrating the serious effects of cyber-attacks and the prominent role they play in global events.  Incidents such as the 2010 Stuxnet attack on an Iranian Uranium enrichment facility, the 2008 Russian cyber-attack on the country of Georgia, the 2014 attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment, and the 2015 discovery of a substantial compromise of the United States Office of Personnel Management are just a few recent examples of the significant and dangerous role cyber operations play in world conflicts.  The United States possesses the most powerful and technologically advanced military forces in the world and has successfully deterred most conventional attacks against its homeland.  Yet when it comes to cyber-attacks, the Sony and OPM incidents show the U.S. has proven seemingly unable to deter these attacks and remains notably vulnerable to attacks in cyberspace.  Traditional models of deterrence such as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) have worked well with nuclear weapons but applying these traditional models to cyber-attacks becomes challenging when one considers the difficulty of attribution and the limitations of operating within the confines of the international Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC).

This research examines the unique new cyber battle space and explains why it poses a significant threat to the U.S.  It studies attribution and how difficulties in this area create significant issues for deterrence of cyber-attacks.   LOAC is explored with consideration of how these international laws apply to operations in the cyber domain.  Finally, the research will show that if the U.S. continues to apply LOAC to cyber conflicts and remains unable to definitively attribute attacks, it will be unable to deter future cyber-attacks.

To better understand the subject matter presented in the research throughout this paper, several terms are defined here followed by a brief introduction to how data (cyber “weapons”) are transmitted across computer networks.

Definitions

Cyber: The DoD defines cyber as “a global domain within the information environment consisting of the interdependent network of information technology infrastructures, including the Internet, telecommunications network, computer systems, and embedded processors and controllers” (Reveron 2012, 115).

To continue: http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/law-of-armed-conflict-attribution-and-the-challenges-of-deterring-cyber-attacks