Wednesday, February 22, 2017

‘There are No Liberals in Putin’s Kremlin,’ Barbashin and Inozemtsev Say

Paul Goble

            Staunton, February 22 – One of the most beloved and effective arguments of those who favor a softer approach to Moscow regardless of what it does is that such an approach will help liberals in the Kremlin win out. But as two leading Russian analysts point out in a new essay, “there are no liberals” there. Those who say otherwise are deceiving themselves and others.

            In the latest issue of The American Interest, Antaon Barbashin of the Intersection Project and Vladislav Inozemtsev of the Moscow Center for Post-Industrial Studies, say that the dichotomy between “liberals” and “statists” that informs much Western analysis “obscures the real divisions” in Moscow (

            Their article merits close study in its entirety. Its key points are as follows:

“Russia watchers love to divide Putin’s inner circle and other decision-making groups in Russia into so-called liberals and ├ętatists. According to this view, certain of Putin’s men believe in some form of liberalism, especially when it comes to the economy. … The other group is the so-called ├ętatists or statesmen, who oppose liberal values, stand for more aggressive foreign and domestic policies, and are generally pro-conflict.

“Most Russia watchers see the Kremlin’s decisions and policy shifts through the lens of these two opposing groups and their relationship with Putin. This simplistic paradigm portrays Putin as the political leader above all the groups and their spheres of interest. All decisions, thus, emerge from the balancing of the two sides.

“In reality, this dichotomy is quite flawed and misleading. It not only oversimplifies the decision-making process in Russia, it encourages misperceptions that have little in common with reality. There have not been any active defenders of liberal ideas among Putin’s trusted elites for quite some time now, in the same way that there are no honest “statesmen” that work for the benefit of the Russian state. [emphasis supplied]

“Virtually all of Putin’s men are interested in the same thing—the preservation of the system that allows them to accumulate almost unlimited wealth. In order to understand how the system really functions, we must categorize Putin’s men in a different fashion.

“[There are] four groups around Putin:

“The first group is the ‘progressives’—politicians and bureaucrats who understand how modern societies in the global economy work and who see clearly that Russia lags behind. Their political goal is reformation and modernization—getting Russia caught up with the most advanced practices of sustainable development. This group is almost entirely excluded from all decision-making in Russia today

“The second group is the ‘neutrals’—technocratic functionaries who have not clearly voiced or formulated political preferences and who can thus implement any political agenda adopted by the President. This group is highly loyal and usually non-political, allowing most of them to retain their high positions despite political turbulence. … The last thing this group wants to do is to propose any agenda, since only by being loyal and quiet do they guarantee their survival.

“The third group is the ‘conservatives,’ so called because they oppose modernization and opt to maintain the status quo, not because they represent conservative or traditional values. They are the ones producing arguments as to why Russian should not modernize or adopt Western concepts of human rights, criteria of corruption, or political mechanisms.

“The fourth and final group is the ‘bigots.’ This is the most recently created and the most aggressive group of all. They are the frontrunners of “conservatism” in its most anti-liberal, anti-Western, and pro-isolation form. From whitewashing Stalin to calling the bombardment of Aleppo “a holy war” to promoting dubious conspiracy theories and praising the “imperial” nature of the Russian people, this group has been inserting into popular discourse the ideas of previously marginalized nationalist, imperialist, and basically fascist circles.

“During Putin’s rule from 2000 to 2012 (including 2008­–12, when he was Prime-Minister), the balance between the progressives and neutrals on the one hand and conservatives on the other was maintained. More importantly, both Russians sympathetic to the progressives and those aligned with the conservatives believed their views were represented within the framework of state governance.

“After 2012 the conservatives and the bigots displaced the first two groups, annihilating even the illusion among the minority of progressive Russians that they were somehow represented in power. The very goal of creating and giving voice to the bigots was to promote the agenda formulated by the conservatives, but due to unpredictable developments both externally (the ongoing confrontation with the West) and internally (slow but steady economic stagnation and rising popular dissatisfaction) the role of the fourth group became outsized and poorly managed.

“Compared to the calculated and balanced polices that Putin maintained throughout his first two presidential terms, the third term has been turbulent, threatening not only the relationships among the elites and Putin’s men but also the stability of the system overall.

“The annexation of Crimea prompted unprecedented public support for all state policies, as for a time the majority of Russians tolerated conservative or even retrograde rhetoric even if it did not represent their own beliefs. Now that effect has worn off and purely domestic economic concerns once again preoccupy Russians far more than great-power relations, war in Syria, or confrontation with the West.

“But the bigots continue to treat progressives and neutrals as enemies of the state, along with those among the population who support or sympathize with them. And so the divide within the Russian public persists.
“This divide could be roughly estimated as 80 percent to 20, where 80 percent of Russians are either politically inert or support conservatives (with a minority of them honestly supporting the bigots), while 20 percent at the most are economically and politically progressive.

“Never during Putin’s reign has this 20 percent felt more united in disenfranchisement than they do today, and if they are not engaged before the 2018 presidential election, Putin’s 4th presidential term will be marked by the most dangerous internal conflict ever seen in contemporary Russia.

“Still, there are several reasons to believe that Putin will opt to adjust his relations with this minority to produce a broader consensus and thereby secure another six-year presidential term as the ‘leader of all Russians.’

“First of all, Russia’s worsening economic hardship increases the need for better governance, which can only be delivered via the inclusion of progressives and neutrals in the decision-making process. Second, though U.S. and European political trends are obviously shifting toward more conservative values, these are much less extreme than the ones Russia’s bigots are promoting. Thus, to improve his chances of getting sanctions lifted and achieving greater cooperation with Western partners, Putin would need to distance himself from the bigots’ most radical rhetoric. Third, it is quite clear that without the knowledge and participation of the progressives and neutrals Russia would hardly overcome a long period of low oil prices and almost 0 percent economic growth. The opportunities for development and growth that progressives had during Putin’s first two presidential terms must be re-created.

“If Putin signals his readiness to cooperate and include more progressives in the decision-making process, Russia’s liberal opposition would lose its cohesion, and thus the opportunity to unite against Putin in 2018 and beyond. If he neglects to do so, he will face a much greater challenge than low oil prices and Western sanctions combined.”

Amnesty International Report Condemns Revival of 1930s-Style ‘Us-Them’ Rhetoric

Paul Goble

            Staunton, February 22 – Many governments around the world over the last year have cynically revived 1930s-style rhetoric of dividing people into “us” and “them” and the movement away from the defense of human rights by major countries is pushing others to adopt “an analogous course,” according to Amnesty International’s annual report.

            In 2016, Salil Shetti, Amnesty International’s secretary general says, many leaders “began to use rhetoric directed at the dehumanization of whole groups of the population, refugees and migrants, foreigners and representatives of other confessions” in order to gain power by “manipulating collective identity” (

            “Ever more leaders of states and politicians who call themselves battlers against the establishment are introducing policies based on persecution, dehumanization and blaming particular groups of people for social problems,” thus undermining human rights in general and opening the way to repression.

            The 175-page report on the state of human rights in 159 countries says that “the situation in the former USSR is generating growing concern.”  In most former Soviet republics, it says, “repressions of dissidents and the political opposition continued.” The situation in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Belarus was “especially bad,” and both Russia and Azerbaijan continued to limit the space “for basic freedoms.”

            Over the course of 2016, civil society in Russia continued to lose ground to state repression. Ever more NGOs were put on the register of “foreign agents,” and three foreign NGOs were declared “undesirable organizations.”  Moreover, the regime “ever more actively used anti-extremist laws against is opponents.”

            In Tajikistan and Kazakhstan, Amnesty International continues, the human rights situation in Tajikistan and Kazakhstan continued to deteriorate rapidly. And as in 2014-2015, the conflict in the Donbass “negatively affected the situation with regard to human rights in Ukraine.”

            Both the Ukrainian government and the pro-Moscow forces in the eastern portion of Ukraine violated the rights of many, with the latter seriously restricting the media to work freely on the territories of the “’self-proclaimed’” republics and the former violating media rights as well.

            In Crimea, which Russia illegally annexed in 2014, the situation is far worse, with the occupiers restricting the rights of residents far more severely than Kyiv.  The particular target of such abuse, Amnesty says, are the members of the Crimean Tatar Milli Mejlis, civic activists and independent journalists.

‘Parade of Sovereignties’ Now Threatens US as It Once Did the USSR, Moscow Analyst Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, February 22 – Vladimir Vasilyev, a specialist at Moscow’s Institute for the Study of the USA and Canada, says that independence movements in California and Texas are setting “an extraordinarily important precedent” and will provoke “a parade of sovereignties” in other states as well, including Wyoming and Nebraska.

            Such “’a domino effect,’” he continues as cited in a Versiya article today by Ruslan Gorevoy will have in  his view “a colossal impact on the entire system, just as the earlier “parade of sovereignties” in Gorbachev’s time had on the USSR (

            What is important about these remarks is that they suggest Moscow hopes to provoke such declarations not only in California and Texas where its role is already much in evidence -- see – but in other states as well, not because these will succeed but because they will create problems.

            Gorevoy admits as much when he says that there are sovereignty movements like those in California and Texas in 29 other states but that of course, not all of them are directed at achieving full independence from the United States. However, he says, “the process as the last Soviet leader said has started.”

            And he suggests that one of the most important factors driving this process now is concern about the US national debt and the consequences of demands by foreign creditors like China to be repaid.  If states leave the US, he says, they might escape responsibility for the indebtedness Washington has incurred.