Institute of Modern Russia

From the West

NATO Summit’s Winners and Losers

James Stavridis, Foreign Policy

James Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO (2009–13), discusses the outcomes of the 2016 Warsaw Summit in his piece for Foreign Policy. According to Stavridis, the winners coming out of the summit are Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland (which will now host 1,000 NATO troops, a crucial step to deter Russian aggression in the region), and Montenegro, a small Balkan country that was officially invited to join NATO. The invitation is a signal that NATO is committed to its open membership policy. Stavridis points to Afghanistan as yet another winner. The alliance has re-committed to keeping troops in the country and providing funding—$4 billion to $5 billion annually—for the Afghan National Security Forces. As for the losers, Putin tops the list. Russia’s goal is to see a destabilized and weakened NATO, but the Warsaw summit demonstrated the opposite. Ukraine and Georgia, two countries that aspire to NATO membership, are also among the losers because their prospects of being invited to the alliance, given the presence of Russian troops on their territories, are low. Another loser coming out of the summit is the Islamic State. NATO is determined to confront ISIS along the Turkish border, and also in Iraq and Syria. And, finally, Stavridis identified Germany as a loser this year because of its willingness to collaborate with Russia—something that is at odds with NATO’s current position.

As Kerry Pushes for Coordination with Russia in Syria, Others in Administration Cry Foul

Karen DeYoung, The Washington Post 

The Washington Post discusses the disagreement among U.S. national security experts over the Obama administration’s offer to coordinate air attacks in Syria with Russia. The proposal coming from Washington includes the establishment of a “Joint Implementation Group” with Russia to exchange intelligence and operational information on the locations of al-Nusra, and to synchronize their independent operations against ISIS. According to secretary of state John F. Kerry, reaching an “understanding” with Russia is crucial to solving the Syrian conflict; however, despite a cease-fire agreement, Syrian planes, with the help of the Russian Air Force, recently took over the only remaining supply route for both rebels and civilians in the northern city of Aleppo. Those who propose renewed collaboration with Moscow argue that it will save lives by stopping attacks on civilians and opposition fighters, and focusing on al-Nusra, a shared enemy. Critics of Washington’s proposal, however, claim that military collaboration with Russia could damage America’s reputation in the long run, and that Moscow “simply cannot be trusted.” Some also note that in order to solve the Syrian conflict, the Assad problem needs to be solved first: “As long as Assad is in power, Syria is a failed state.” Such disagreements in Washington once again show the challenges the U.S. faces in its attempts to deal with the Syrian crisis.

Kremlin Paranoia Leads to Escalation in Spy War

Damic Marusic, The American Interest

In his piece for the American Interest, Damir Marusic analyzes a recent chain of events—the assault on an American diplomat by Russian security services outside the U.S. Embassy, and the subsequent expulsion of two Russian diplomats from Washington and two U.S. diplomats from Moscow—that has escalated the tension between Washington and Moscow. The author says it is unlikely the initial assault was sanctioned by Putin himself: in a climate of “unrelenting anti-Americanism” in Russia, some FSB lieutenant probably took the initiative, thinking “he was doing his patriotic duty.” The Obama administration tried to keep the incident quiet, knowing that, if leaked, the footage of the assault could inflame public opinion in the U.S. and impede progress in U.S.-Russia relations. Russia seemed to respect Washington’s position, and both officials and the media were quiet on the incident. Two weeks later, however, Russia’s Foreign Affairs Ministry announced that it had expelled two U.S. diplomats. According to Marusic, the official reaction from Moscow was prompted by Josh Rogin’s article in the Washington Post, which “blew the lid off of a story that both sides up until then had tried to keep under wraps.” The Kremlin, failing to understand that the White House does not control American news outlets, perceived the story as a direct provocation by the CIA. Marusic concludes that these events revealed the nature of the Moscow-Washington relationship and the gap that exists between the two countries. The White House is mistaken if it believes significant progress can be made with Russian in the near future.

From Russia

Unbearable Discussions: How  #IAmNotAfraidToSay (#ЯНеБоюсьСказать) Campaign Brought About a Culture of Violence

Kirill Martynov, Slon.ru

The ongoing social media campaign hashtagged #IAmNotAfraidToSay (#ЯНеБоюсьСказать) tapped into the widely suppressed problems of sexual harassment and sexual violence plaguing Russian and Ukrainian societies (and, likely, all the post-Soviet space). It has also revealed the horrific scale of this issue, as it seems almost every woman in Russia has been affected by sexual harassment and/or violence in some way. Columnist Kirill Martynov dissects the discussions that unraveled during the campaign in the context of Russia’s authoritarian, patriarchic culture, and concludes that they signify that “another taboo” has been lifted thanks to social media. The public reaction, however, as demonstrated mostly by males, was quite controversial. The author breaks these reactions down into three categories—denial, irony, and hypocrisy—and argues that all are rooted in the deep rejection by some parts of society of the idea that gender relations in Russia, based on a culture of violence, need to be revised and that this campaign might just have triggered this social change. Martynov also says the campaign revealed the essence of the current regime from a different angle: “patriarchy, or institutionalized practices of male domination, is a fundamental source of all other forms of repression.” Or in other words, “as long as Russian men share patriarchic views of ‘female essence,’ they serve harmoniously as subjects of a masculine dictator.” (We also recommend reading the article titled “Litmus Test: On the Flashmob that Diagnoses Society” penned by well-known Russian psychologist Lyudmila Petranovskaya, who analyzes the public reaction on a deeper level. In Russian only.)

The Blind Spots of Love for Motherland

Maria Snegovaya, Vedomosti

Columbia University graduate candidate Maria Snegovaya addresses the issue of patriotism in modern Russia and its interconnections with the problem of national security. She notes that in social sciences, there is a tradition of distinguishing between two types of patriotism—“constructive” and “blind.” The former suggests a love for one’s country that is open to rational analysis and criticisms of the motherland, and that is also linked to aspirations to improve the situation. This type of patriotism involves political participation, political activism, access to various sources of information, and faith that people can influence the country’s policies. The other type of patriotism is an “unquestioned positive view of one’s motherland and intolerance to the criticisms of the state.” “Blind” patriotism also suggests weak political participation, nationalism, and fear of foreign threats. It is this type of patriotism that is historically inherent to Russia as a result of its specific, state-centered political culture coupled with an inability to distinguish between the “state” and the “country.” Another historical reason is Russia’s lack of humanist tradition and independent institutions, and the fact that Russia never saw a desacralization of political power.

RBC Investigation: Who Has Settled Around Presidential Residence in Valdai

Ivan Golunov, Yelena Myazina, Roman Badanin, RBC

RBC published a new in-depth investigation into the land property issues surrounding Vladimir Putin’s presidential residence in Valdai (a place in the Novgorod region that gave its name to the International Valdai Forum). Locals told RBC journalists that Putin comes to Valdai quite often, and starting in the mid-2000s, members of his close circle began to acquire land and develop real estate in the area. For example, it was discovered that a piece of land 98 hectares (242.2 acres) in area adjoining the residence belongs to a firm called Prime, owned by Putin’s friend Yuri Kovalchuk and his son Boris. The same company also leases a neighboring section of land 58 hectares (143.3 acres) in area from Valdaisky National Park. It is not clear how Prime was able to acquire these properties; information on the development and construction facilities is scarce. Another piece of land in the vicinity of the presidential residence used to be a resort but is now under 100 percent control of another close associate of Putin, Arkady Rotenberg. Fifteen minutes away, in the village of Yashcherevo, RBC discovered real estate belonging to head of the National Guard Viktor Zolotov, acting governor of the Tula region Aleksei Dyumin, current head of the Department of Presidential Affairs Alexander Kolpakov, and the wife of former adviser to the president Sergei Ushakov. In nearby Yashcherevo, a new village has emerged, where among the owners can be found former director of the Federal Protective Service Yevgeny Murov, former head of the Department of Presidential Affairs Vladimir Kozhin, and his deputy Ivan Malyushin. The article details how said plots of land were acquired by these people, who, unsurprisingly, provided no comments on the matter.

Nini Arshakuni helped compile this week's roundup.