While the bigwigs debated at Davos, key Greek bondholders were holding closed-door meetings in Paris to discuss how — and whether — to continue talks central to Europe’s debt crisis, a person close to the bondholders said, quoted by Reuters.

Euro area sovereign debt crisis and its impact on the world economy will be the main topic of debates. Also, on agenda of talks is likely to be China’s economic rise, the rules imposed on financial systems and practical effects of the protests that have affected the whole country during the previous year and the begin of 2012. Despite the fact that Germany reported a greater then expected rise in bussines confidence, prospects are bleak (later Wednesday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel may chart her course for Europe’s crisis in her keynote speech at the Davos forum). Surveys ahead of the meeting showed pessimism among world CEOs and plunging levels of public trust in business and government leaders, feeding the overall sense of fragility in the U.S. and European economies, and concerns that it will bring the whole world’s economy down. Fear among international experts of a major geopolitical disruption over the next 12 months has risen significantly to 54%, just as confidence in the state of global cooperation has dropped, according to the World Economic Forum’s third Global Confidence Index.

From composition of this horror and funambulistic landscape could not miss the messangers of Apocalypse. U.S. billionaire George Soros warns that in the next period will follow a financial disaster and will lead a fierce struggle between the political classes, according to journalists in Bussines Insider. The financial system is collapsing, and the developed world is fast falling into a “deflationary debt trap” he reiterated. At a lunch on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum, Soros told journalists that European authorities “had done everything wrong” in their response to the financial crisis that struck in 2007, with a confused policy response that betrayed widespread ignorance of how financial markets work. The financier compared the crisis to the collapse of the Soviet empire and the Great Depression, adding that the old belief in the power of the market to prevent turmoil could no longer be relied upon. “The best-case scenario is a deflationary environment. The worst-case scenario is a collapse of the financial system. We need to move from the Age of Reason to the Age of Fallibility in order to have a proper understanding of the problems” said Soros. Another usual shocking statements were made by “Doctor Doom”, Nouriel Roubini. ”There is no real decoupling… there is a recession right now in the periphery euro zone” Roubini said in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos. “There’s a recession throughout Europe, US growth is very anemic. There is a slowdown right now in China” he added.

A brief chronology of events

A bit over a year ago, Romanian watched peaceful to the people took to the streets in several countries across the ‘Arab world’ in what was later on called the ‘Arab Spring’. Then Romanians, apparently as impassive, watched on tv to Indignados and Ocuppy Wall Street movements in «mother» Europe and America. Nothing seemed to put the thoughts on the government while they imposed extreme austerity measures to the poorest populations of the European Union. President – Premier did not seem to notice that the cut of a pension of 1,000 euros (Greece) is a measure of austerity and cut a pension of 200 euros or below (Romania) is a crime. Aberrant measures had, however, and motivation: the IMF agreement. Motivations were found to suspend debate and dialogue between government and parliament. Then came the adoption of organic laws of vital importance by the government accountable without consulting parliament.

 Romania – faked democracy !

Before Christmas holiday appeared first discussions on a number of irregularities in Health Act which would be taken also without consulting parliament. Vigorous supporter of the existing project, President Basescu said on national television that the Deputy Health Ministry, Raed Arafat, is the main enemy of health system reform. Arafat, a Syrian Arab that has become a Romanian citizen, has distinguished himself by successfully founding the only professional emergency rescue service in Romania (SMURD), thereby embodying professionalism and moral standing in a healthcare system that is mostly regarded as book-example of corruption and oftentimes considered an expressway to the grave. Two weeks later, President Basescu with the usual habit to replace his Prime Minister and lead Romania as his own feud, intervened in the live TV debate vehemently criticized Arafat opinion and accused him of ‘leftist views’. The consequence of such a forceful televised intervention on behalf of President Basescu was that Arafat presented his resignation shortly afterwards. Next days discontent exploded. Initially the protests supporting of Raed Arafat and condemned the arrogance attitude and usual insolence of head of state. Facing public pressure, President Basescu decided to scrap the reforms Friday, saying he made the decision after realizing that a majority of those in the medical system and the population opposed to the change. It was certainly one new mistake of President Basescu. What head of state of the civilized world tells its people – who elected leader and those money he is paid – that is retrograde and unable to understand that governors wish him well when the people feel it’s becoming worse with every day ?

Tired of corruption systemic, theft unmasked and faked democracy, Romanians studded streets in over 60 cities in seven days of protest. They required the resignation of President Basescu and early elections. People chanted: Ultimate solution, once the revolution ! with reference to the revolution of 1989 when the communist regime was overthrown. Or, better, a revolution for evolution !  Or  ironic they say: Please excuse us, we do not produce how you steal ! Prime Minister Boc, Minister of Health and other government leaders have avoided for days to appear in public. Later they came just to throw invectives on the protesters or to mimic a dialogue with opposition forces. In an failed attempt to appease the spirits, PM said that he and the president have been misinformed on health law. But PM not said who is guilty of disinformation! Raed Arafat was reinstated in office. But useless. Although Romanians protest vehemently week, President Basescu (the same, which has usually the custom to intervene in all sorts of things that do not concern the duties of head of state) has avoided expressing an public opinion.

 The surgery was successful, the patient is in coma !

As protests intensified, the government tries to get cold while hoping that will deter the protesters and things will calm down. Next week will be a special session of Parliament. About the main demands of the population, Prime Minister Boc said that it is not justified. Noting that early elections would create a dangerous precedent and affect economic stability. In addition, he said that Romania would to become unattractive to investors. Romanian Prime Minister seems completely unrealistic. In which civilized and democratic countries early elections are a dangerous precedent ? What attractive business environment it is, if in 2011 the volume of foreign investments in Romania fell by 36% ? Oh, yes, the EU and IMF demanded austerity in Romania and government conformed – now there are riots and 18% of Romanian  live below the poverty line (compared to Czech – 2% Ireland – 4%​​), and austerity measures decreased purchasing power of Romanians with over 9% in a year – according to a survey of the Institute for Quality Research of life. Two million Romanian workers are at risk of poverty. To get a clearer view: in the UK an employee who lives in poverty earns 967 euros monthly, a Romanian poor employee earns 159 euros, achieving the lowest minimum wage in EU countries. Minimum wage in Bulgaria is 233 euros and 326 euros in Poland. In conclusion: the surgery was successful, the patient is in coma !

 Functional hypocrisy and dual attitude

“One year ago, President Ben Ali of Tunisia became the first casualty of the 2011 Arab Spring. Could we now be witnessing in Romania the first shoots of a European Spring?” asked editor Neil Clark from The Week – UK Edition. Although Romania is far from being a genuine democracy, I think such a comparison is inappropriate, however. We can speak rather an evolution than a revolution, if the “orange” regime in Bucharest would accept the democratic rules of the game. But if not? It seems that for evolution will be needed a new revolution. No matter how unpleasant it may sound.

Of course, the disturbances are undoubtedly embarrassing for the EU, the IMF and those western leaders for whom the Romanian government has been a staunch ally. Of course, hypocrisy and dual attitude of foreign partners are operating in this case. In contrast to neighboring Hungary, Romania accepted all that was dictated from abroad, whether we refer to U.S. strategic partner, the European partners or high finance world. Romanian Government had nothing to comment even when they have asked to implement abberant measures against  their own people. Thus it is easy to understand why European leaders immediately warned the government in Budapestat the recent protests of the population. But in respect of tandem Basescu – Boc, except for discrete requirement that Romanian head of state to express their opinion, European partners prove to be very “bashfully”. Although the deviations from the democracy line of leader in Bucharest are not far from those of Viktor Orban. Moreover, Europe has its own problems. Quite serious.

Neither the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest did not feel the need to say something, preferring only to follow the events. even if on his visit to the White House last September, President Basescu, a hard-core Atlanticist, was formally “congratulated” for signing up to the US-Romania Ballistic Missile Defence Agreement and the US-Romania Joint Declaration on Strategic Partnership for the 21st Century. An important partnership for U.S. in the context of an increasingly tense international atmosphere not only with Iran and Syria, but also with Russia (became an open supporter of the two countries). Moreover, a partnership that need to be fully functional regardless of who will occupy the chair of president of the state. The attitude of expectation may be due to the fact that potential substitutes (at least at this time) of President Basescu have strong pro-American view, so there is little reason to concern of Western Partnership. Clearly, the Romanian citizens matters less in this equation.

      So, Western leaders will prefer to wait and will be hoping that the Romanian government can survive the current disturbances. They can not condemn a people who demand the right to decency and respect from his politicians. Also they can not condemn the authorities – because in the next minute President Basescu would not hesitate to accuse the EU because irrational austerity measures required government in Bucharest.

Analysts said the protests are a sign of revival of  Romania civil society. I would say that this is an example of national and social solidarity. A successful example after several years of silence in which complaints have steadily accumulated. It is hardly to predict how it all will end in Romania. However, as noted Swedish political expert Vilhelm Konnander: “What I can’t help seeing is the pattern of protest that is spreading globally, where attitudes of politicians, blaming external factors for crisis, lead to higher demands for accountability. To whom are political leaders responsible – the people of the IMF, EU, etc.? It will be interesting to see how this turns out in Romania, but the basic observation seems to be that far too many politicians have forgot whom they are answering to”. The bad news for PM Boc and his colleagues in the governing Democratic Liberal party is that the disturbances show no sign of abating. Moreover, they could increase in intensity during the weekend. Of course, flagrant violations of human rights were a lot to the protests. Numerous attempts to intimidate participants in the protests, police abuses, frame-ups of violence to discredit the protests. Without success! At the moment the regime in Bucharest is autistic. Political power has made a few steps back. What’s next? Whether they fail slowly, step by step. Whether they will tense the muscles of authoritarian, knowing that however they do not have to lose more. If the 20 years of democracy, even mimed, meant something for the political class, they will fail. Government will be dismissed, it will form a government of technocrats and elections will be held – early or on time – but not cumulative way of local and parliamentary elections, as hoped the current government. And perhaps the most important thing of those described above: Romanians are reminded about good moral principles and values ​​that prevails in its heritage as a nation. It’s a good sign.

UPDATE: January 19, 15 p.m. (Bucharest time)

Romanian President Traian Basescu has met with the ambassadors accredited in Bucharest. He reminded about the Arab Spring, but completely ignored the protests which demand his resignation.

Published – Eurasia Review

Ultimate solution, once the revolution !

In the last hour 500 students have joined the protesters. It requires the resignation of President Basescu and early elections. People chanted: Ultimate solution, once the revolution ! with reference to the revolution of 1989 when the communist regime was overthrown.

President Basescu has avoided expressing an opinion about protests. Protests started on Thursday in support of Deputy Health Minister Raed Arafat, who resigned this week after criticising the draft healthcare reform bill and being confronted by President Basescu, a supporter of the project. Afterwards the protests expanded from support for dr. Arafat to general discontent with the government’s unpopular austerity measures and too many dictatorial tendencies of the regime in Bucharest.

2011 was a hectic year. 2011 was a year of turmoil, from revolutions in the Middle East and fiery turbulence in London to milder outbursts against Netflix price increases or the Hershey warehouse’s student working conditions. Even Time Magazine selected ‘The protester’ as the Person of the Year. Much agitation and latent discontents which erupted, generating many questions and few answers, many uncertainties and few clarifications. And if I said few answers, I not means to the aggressive responses of law of enforcement against protesters, used from the United States to Russia, and from London to Damascus or even to Beijing.

This year 42 journalists, more or less known, have lost their lives while trying to do their job professionally. Among those who left shockingly and prematurely included the British-American photojournalist Tim Hetherington, renowned photographer and co-director with Sebastian Junger of the documentary Restrepo (2010). Tim Hetherington was killed near town Misrata, during the civil war between opponents of the Gaddafi regime and its supporters.

Year of political and economic crisis

The eurozone’s future hung in the balance, the US saw its credit rating downgraded, Japan’s earthquake rocked financial markets and fiscal failings forced out two prime ministers. Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi and his Greek counterpart received “read card”. Also, many political players from Middle East (Syria, Yemen, Jordan), Europe and Russia received “yellow card” for low efficiency of crisis management and it is possible that the debt maturity to come in 2012. In spring, with the world looking for firm financial leadership, Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested in New York on sexual assault allegations, forcing his resignation as the head of the International Monetary Fund (the charges are subsequently dropped). Later the charges were withdrawn. The episode remains controversial. In autumn, the tension between the US and China over international trade escalates when Beijing imposes additional duties on cars imported from the United States. In change, Russia was admitted into the World Trade Organisation on Friday after 18 years of negotiation, finally binding it into the global economy two decades after the Soviet Union collapsed. EU leaders agree a “fiscal compact” after David Cameron vetoed a revision of the Lisbon treaty. And the year ends with a happy new year message from the IMF: the world, warns Lagarde, is at serious risk of sliding into a 1930s-style slump. But I think that it will keep happening and each time it will get worse and worse, because there is no answer to this present crisis if we continue with the failed economics of Milton Friedman and the free market gang. More, everything we have seen from 2008 to present was just the socialization of financial risk, but not profits too, and the politicians are «shy» when it comes to discussion about the bankers, those that support their political adventure.

Some dictatorship breakdown – the global police stat rises

But 2011 was also a year when humanity has escaped to some dictators. True, it remains questionable the lack of principles and functional hypocrisy of the same countries that have contributed to the fall of Egypt – Mubarak and Libya – Gaddafi regimes, after decades when they accepted the two dictators because it suited their interests.

Unfortunately, the democratization of these countries started with the left and the first results prove to be disastrous. Will see, in 2012 and beyond, how will be build a democracy with representative government, a free press, and an independent judiciary? Unlikely. More, Libyan “soap-opera” has provided opportunity to the regime in Damascus to justify unspeakable abuses against Syrian protesters. It’s still hard to discern between the repression of a criminal regime and the «help» received to destabilize Syria and justification for external intervention. In addition, after  Libyan adventure more and more shadows seem to imply in relations between major political actors  U.S., Russia and China.

At the end of the year, North Korea finally escaped to Kim Jong-Il. Natural. But how appear the things in space of communist – monarchy in Pyongyang, only to replace one dictator with another.

Watching the images of the funeral of Kim Jong-Il, any Western citizen wondered how such a thing possible. The answer has several components: time, fear, limits of human and citizen rights, ideological indoctrination. Basic tools of any police and dictatorial state. And if you think that this can happen only in Korea or Iran, I say to you, think again. Let′s speak a little about police stat, first step of any authoritarian regime. In fact, Syria is the leading exponent of the police state. But the same type of reaction (it is true to a lower level) can be seen in all countries where the authorities are facing with the discontent of the population. Take a look to the authorities of your country ! When they are no solutions, they will hide their incompetence under various pretexts – all generating fear and insecurity: the fall of the euro, the nuclear threat, terrorists, national security (basically just the security of their own pockets), unemployment, austerity. Team Obama’s press briefing about the ongoing saga of the Nigerian underwear bomber. Obama’s is clearly trying to cultivate a fear of Al-Qaeda while simultaneously building blind trust in his government. After the President’s remarks, his Homeland Security Secretary and Deputy National Security Advisor took the stage to unveil a series of proposals to ‘improve security’. After the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq (in a lost battle, despite the official statements), President Obama needs a new enemy on which to focus the attention of his voters. It could be Iran, Al-Qaeda or whatever. All what it is important is to cultivate your fear and deflect you attention from the disaster produced by the fat cats on Wall Street. In the same times, according The Moscow Times, the top three individual words used by mass-media from Russia in 2011 are полиция (police), рокировка (castling, job swap at the top) and альфа-самец (alpha male). And Russia has a favorite enemy meant to scare and to justify the cost of weapons: American anti-missile shield. The examples could continue. Therefore, 2012 will be a year when many countries will have parliamentary and presidential elections and I think it is good to think seriously about who you give your vote. Perhaps it is time to remind politicians that we want to live in a world of normal, healthy principles and values​​. According FT, in politics field, “2012 will be driven by tactics and electoral timing. The great revolt will come later. Next year, tactically adept incumbents may survive by offering stability at a time of chaos. Their chances are particularly high if they can identify with the pain of their citizens more effectively than weak challengers”. I think that the chance of citizens is to think. It does not cost. Not yet !

A Kremlin aide who played a key role in helping Vladimir Putin craft his tightly controlled political system was moved to a senior government job on Tuesday by President Dmitry Medvedev. Medvedev appointed Kremlin first deputy chief of staff Vladislav Surkov as a deputy prime minister, and appointed Deputy Prime Minister Vyacheslav Volodin in his place, Medvedev’s spokeswoman Natalia Timakova said. Remember that the last week Deputy Prime Minister Sergey Ivanov was appointed Head of Presidential Administration.

Surkov’s appointment was preceded by the return on Russian politics stage of the Russian ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin. The duty of Mr Rogozin as vice-premier will be the management of Russian military-industrial complex.

PS: Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) chief, Colonel General Alexander Shlyakhturov, has stepped down on grounds of age. His successor is Major General Igor Sergun.

“The falsifications that authorities are doing today have turned the country into a big theater, with clowns like in a circus,” said (for AP journalists) Alexander Trofimov, one of the early arrivals for the protest at Bolotnaya Square, on an island in the Moscow River adjacent to the Kremlin. “I don’t think any citizen of the country can say he is very happy with anything. We don’t have an independent judiciary, there is no freedom of expression — all this combined creates a situation where people are forced to protest,” said demonstrator Albert Yusupov, who was dressed in civilian clothes but identified himself as a member of the Russian army.

According Reuters, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev conceded this week that election law may have been violated and Putin suggested “dialogue with the opposition-minded” — breaking from his usual authoritarian image. The Kremlin has come under strong international pressure, with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling the vote unfair and urging an investigation into fraud. Putin in turn criticized Clinton and the United States for allegedly instigating protests and trying to undermine Russia.

The protesters have permission to stage a big rally in Moscow. But police, whose show of force doused protests after a rally on Monday turned into the biggest opposition rally in the capital for years, have vowed to stamp out any illegal actions. Police said there were at least 25,000, while protest organizers claimed 40,000. I talked online with some of protesters and they have approximated that it would be up to 30,000 people. Ilya Yashin, an leader of Russian opposition spoke about 60,000 participants. He added that : “It is a really victory !” Finally, is less important if they are 25,000…or 30,000, or 60,000…important is their message !

If Saturday’s protests are a success, the activists then face the challenge of long-term strategy. Even though U.S. Sen. John McCain recently tweeted to Putin that “the Arab Spring is coming to a neighborhood near you,” things in Russia are not that simple. The popular uprisings that brought down governments in Georgia in 2003, in Ukraine the next year, and in Egypt last spring all were significantly boosted by demonstrators being able to establish round-the-clock presences, notably in Cairo’s Tahrir Square and the massive tent camp on Kiev’s main avenue. Russian police would hardly tolerate anything similar.

Update: 18.00 Moscow Time

The ambulance service says their services were not required at Bolotnaya Square. Three emergency crews were on standby at the rally. Russia’s human rights ombudsman praises police professionalism in handling the opposition rally at Bolotnaya Square, says the event is a lesson in democracy. The Moscow rally at Bolotnaya Square is over. Organizers have called for another protest gathering on December 17 and 24 at the same location. I think that Russian authorities gave a proof of wisdom and abstained from provocative counter-actions. Also, subscribe to the observation of Alexey Venediktov (editor of Moscow Echo) that was a protest rally rather ethical and not political. This means a good sign for civil society in Russia.

Varianta în limba română – aici.

Interview made by Marius Lefter

Marius Lefter: – At the internal level, the economy of Russia started having systemic problems because of the emphasis and the dependence on the revenues from oil trade. On the other hand, at the external level, Russia plays the game for more than it can afford, comparing with its major competitors. In this case, what could be the reasons of the Russian people to vote for a united country?

Gabriela Ioniţă: – The willing to vote of the Russian people can be seen as a reaction towards the short-term economic reforms with objectives affecting the day-to-day life rather than long-term projects with uncertain timeline. A brief glance at the numerous calls made by President Medvedev to the Russian elite or to the investors to support Russia’s modernization program shows that the lack of trust in politics generates huge gaps in economic reforms.

Moreover, the construction of the vertical power meant control of political growth which resulted in a period of stability, but also a great catch - nothing new and representative grew under the shade of the old hierarchies. After the recent meeting with Prime Minister Putin in Valdai Club meeting, the political scientist Nikolai Zlobin pointed out the absence of guidelines that will form the basis of its future return to Kremlin from the speech of the most powerful man in Russia. This can be explained by the simple fact that Russian Prime Minister acknowledged the lack of new people and ideologies that bring public consensus. In fact, the main problem and the cause of the declining popularity Russia has to face is exactly this one: a rigid political framework, hard to shape, conservative and reluctant to the new events happening in Russia.

So you’re asking what could possibly make the Russian people to vote for a party that they call themselves a party of thieves and crooks (julikov i vorov parti). The answer is the lack of a better option combined with the lack of trust in politicians, no matter what their political beliefs are, given that nothing is allowed in Russia’s politics without the consent of Kremlin.

The scandal in the Right Cause party and the rapid end of Mihail Prokhorov’s political career as a result of the serious accusations made with the interference of the Kremlin (i.e. the number two of the presidential administration, Vladislav Surkov) showed voters once again that the political independence is pure rhetoric.

M.L.: – Going more into detail, which are the civic movements and political parties that will support or enter into alliance with the United Russia, and their reasons?

G.I.: – Russia is not just the country with a famous political tandem. There would be no political tandem without an alternative to the electorate or perspective of political parties, all for the sake of a political stability that Prime Minister Putin doesn’t fail to claim and impose at all costs.

But before analyzing the Russian political scene nowadays, I would like to mention that experts from the Center for Strategic Research in Moscow warned that “in the present socio-political climate, a tactical success can lead to strategic failure”, making reference to the 70% of the votes that are envisaged by the “United Russia” in December elections and also making reference to the machine of the party that would do anything to fulfill the orders from the center.

Experts also argued that a victory in the elections will be seen by most of the people not as an indicator of the popularity of the party, but as a proof that the elections were rigged. The study was made especially because there were suspicions that the level of electoral fraud exceeded all expectations. This is how I could describe the context immediately after the political confrontations of the elections. In this context, the traditional parties make their presence felt – LDPR, the party of Jirinovski, the Communist Party of Ziuganov, the Socialist party of Mironov and the Iabloko Social Liberal party led by Sergey Mitrohin (each with their loyal voters who didn’t change too much over the elections). In addition, there were other small parties faithful and belonging to the Kremlin. And we also have a puppet opposition that is more present at international meetings than at home, where arrests and releases have become ironically a source of amusement. (…)

Interview full can be read here.

First part of interview with Marius Lefter from Geopolitics.ro.

• Varianta în limba română poate fi citită aici.

Marius Lefter (M.L.): – What is Moscow’s position regarding the Policy of Neighbourhood of UE?

 Gabriela Ionita (G.I.): – According to the European Commission of Economic and Financial Affairs, European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) – launched in 2003 , this matter provides for the gradual development of trade relations and for traditional cooperation, thus achieving a higher degree of integration between EU and neighbourhood countries. In fact, economically ENP  offers to these states preferential trade relations, participation in the EU internal market, a better relation with the EU ( for the example on transport, telecommunication and energy sector ), none the less the benefit to participate in certain EU programs and some substantial financial support and technical assistance. Although Russia does not fit in this equation, we can easily see that many of the objectives set out in the action plans of partner countries are found in the draft between Russia and EU – Strategic Partnership for Modernization of the Russian Federation and European Union. Moreover, Russia had demonstrated that it has sufficient leverage to influence other countries from its neighbourhood, and the existence in its area of influence of countries that share fundamental values and objectives of EU, countries that have a profound cooperation with member countries, assuming a high level of economic and political integration, which would be a benefit for the Russian economy. Unfortunately, the same levers of power , have demolished neighbourhood states like Belarus and Ukraine. The president of the Russian state , Medvedev recalled that Russian needs the EU technology, economic diversification and new standards to be competitive on a common market. In theory, self-regulation market based on supply and demand. When in the reality is more collared. If we’re speaking of a common economic space between Russia and Europe, we believe that the Russian state will be forced to modernize, if they are looking to be competitive. Normally this should work upon the new markets in the new area. Ukraine and Belarus are not the best references regarding foreign policies for their own interest. About Romania’s role as EU’s border country , the relation with Moldova but also with states like Ukraine or Georgia, and how we could benefit from this context is yet already another story.

ML: - Because you mentioned about Moscow’s leverage on their own interests … how would be seen in this context the problematic of the missile shield and what would be the evolution in this direction ?

 G.I.: – Although no one officially admitted, the security strategy promoted by the President Medvedev seems to have been a failure ( and the return of Vladimir Putin’s to Kremlin, would replace the soft speech of the current president, with a tough and pragmatic discourse famous to the international opinion)  The failure hasn’t come from the wrong strategy, but rather from the perpetuation of mistrust and reluctance between EU chancelleries to Russia, when it comes to security and strategic alliances. In addition,we must not overlook that so controversial, yet only on a theoretical level reformed , blamed for the U.S. influence, Nato brings together top of EU countries. Countries that are trying to get out of the economic crisis since 2008, so limited to security policy proposals that would require even more than do the facts that are already involved. On the other hand,  the restart in the Rusia and U.S. relations has continued to be hunted by the ghosts of the Cold War, in spite of the officials declarations. The refusal of US officials to accept the sectoral responsibility of the anti-rocket shield as it was seen by Moscow, the official issue to put the shield in Romania ( without the discussion with the Russian partners of Nato’s Council ) . The strategic alliance between Romania and U.S. has eroded what was restart. Soon after the election that took place in the Russian Federation , Obama was invited in Kremlin. Many specialists asked themselves, what would both presidents say about the shield issue, one of them is finishing his mandate – Medvedev and another does not knows if he will obtain the second mandate – Obama. Nobody seems to know. All the more Obama, seems busy with the internal situation than the foreign policy. But we must remember that president Medvedev warn regarding the failure of the shield negotiations and the termination of the Second Start Treaty – main objective during the mandates of both presidents. One thing is sure – during the summit that will take place in 2012 in Chicago, the meeting it will be between Obama and the new installed leader of Kremlin – Vladimir Putin.

M.L. : What is the difference between Eurasiatic Union and the Community of Independent States ?

G.I.: The announcement that it will be established a Eurasiatic Union , was received by the occidental media as a headline news, is spite that Kremlin worked very much for the crystallization of it. In this case we face a difference not a vision that has subordinated medium and long-term objectives, theoretically. The reality, the case is not optimistic for the constitution of the Euroasiatic Union, being considered by the Russian economists as a subject for election campaign. Recent, in a interview realized by main television channel in Russia, Vladimir Putin said the reunion of the five economies will create a pole so strong that will be a bridge between European Union and the regional dynamics that all the spotlights of this decade are – Asia. In response, the economist Vladislav Inozemtsev asked rhetorically in a article published by Washington Post, what kind of bridge can be build with the exceeded infrastructure of Russia.  (Full text can be read here)

Arab League says it has rejected a Syrian request for amendments to an agreement that would send observers to the country. On Wednesday, Arab League foreign ministers approved a plan to send observers into Syria to verify whether the regime has taken measures to protect civilians, giving Damascus three days to implement a protocol to allow observers to enter the nation. But Syria requested changes to the proposal the next day. On Sunday, the Arab League said in a statement that it had rejected Syria’s request, saying it “radically alters the nature of the … mission.”

From the Syrian part, in an interview with The Sunday Times, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad warned that any potential military intervention against his country would lead to “very dire” repercussions and said he is willing to die for his country. Unfortunately, nobody is able to confirm the media report independently because of the restrictions Damascus places on foreign journalists. In this time, the international community still examines what must to do. It’s still hard to discern between the repression of a criminal regime and the «help» received to destabilize Syria and justification for external intervention. In addition, after  Libyan adventure more and more shadows seem to imply in relations between major political actors  U.S., Russia and China.

In a sea of ​​uncertainty, there is only one certainty: many civilians are and have been assassinated in the unrest and people have to ask the questions: Who killed them and Why were they killed? …I would add: Who will pays for… ?

•••

Those who believe that peace is laid after the death of Muammar Gadhafi were wrong. Libyan soap opera continues. Libyans celebrated late into the evening Saturday the reported capture of Muammar Gadhafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, nabbed in a desert gunbattle after an 18-day stakeout. Senior Libyan military officials said they believe the potential Gadhafi successor was trying to make his way to neighboring Niger, where a brother, Saadi, was granted asylum. Do not worry illusions. Saif will not be tried in The Hague. He knows too much to be given the opportunity to speak. Justice Minister Mohammad Al-Alagy said he doubts Libyan courts would want to try Saif al-Islam for crimes against humanity. Put in the spotlight in order to minimize the dissatisfaction of those who are beginning to understand that Ghadafi’s replacement was not for the benefit of many, the story of Saif also gave greater impetus to the talks on Green blogs. Fighting rages in Benghazi, Bani Walid, Sirte, Tripoli and other cities across Libya. Jamahiriya loyalists control most territory though portions shift back and forth. Terror bombings continue daily. In contrast, positive news flow on official media treadmill. Speaking about contradictory media news, Dennis South, after 9 months the covering the Lybia situation: “See, Libya is just a battlefield, not the entire war. The war is global. The war is being waged on every human being on the planet. The war is being waged by European monarchies, corporations, corrupt and puppet-politicians, and monied-interests, such as Wall Street”.

And the building democracy in Egypt is «celebrated with joy»: at least 3,000 protesters are in the capital’s Tahrir Square, facing off with hundreds of black-clad riot police firing tear gas and rubber bullets. The protests have spread across much of Egypt. At least 13 protesters have been killed since Saturday, all but one in Cairo. Hundreds of others have been injured. Violent clashes between protesters and Egypt’s military police flared again yesterday, leaving at least ten dead and hundreds injured. The military has put forward a timetable which puts the transfer of power sometime in late 2012 or early 2013. So enough time for a fiesta extended…

Meanwhile, US – the first artisan of export of democracy – have big problems with its own citizens and their right to protest. Trying to hide serious problems of a failed system by creating external outbreaks of war is not a solution. Exporting democracy has failed in a miserable export of violence and instability. So again ask: Who will pays for…? and Who can stop it…?

Who has not understood yet that this is not a game with winners and lost: think again !

published – Oriental Review, nov. 2011

What is about precisely ? Into an interview to 1tv Channel (National Television) Vladimir Putin wanted to remind that Roosevelt won elections in 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944, and died in office in 1945, months after the Yalta Conference where he, Soviet leader Josef Stalin and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill carved up Europe at the end of World War Two. “He ruled the country in the toughest years of economic depression and in World War Two and was elected four times because he was effective” said Putin, who won presidential elections in 2000 and 2004. After praising Roosevelt, Putin went on to list other long-serving leaders including Helmut Kohl, who was German chancellor for 16 years. He also said he liked de Gaulle, France’s president from 1959 to 1969.

Surkov’s ideas Redivivus

Vladimir Putin (R) and Vladislav Surkov (L)

Usually, Vladimir Putin has been compared to tsars and Communist Party chiefs. Is something new there ? Not exactly. We remember – 4 years ago, also the deputy head of presidential administration, Vladislav Surkov said that between Vladimir Putin and 32-m U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt a lot in common.

About this Surkov said, speaking at the conference “Lessons of the New Deal for Modern Russia and the world” – February 2007, dedicated to the 125 th anniversary of Roosevelt. Likening Russia following the 1991 Soviet collapse to the Depression-era United States, Surkov suggested that Putin needed to use a firm hand to put the country on the road to recovery.
“Like Roosevelt in his time, today Putin must and should strengthen administrative control and use the potential of presidential power to the maximum degree for the sake of overcoming the crisis” Surkov was quoted as saying by RIA-Novosti. “In the 20th century, Roosevelt was our military ally, and in the 21st century, he is our ideological ally” he added.

Now that we have clear the source of Putin′s ideas, we would like to note also that it definitely separates the two leaders: only one God sent to Earth to save Russia (according to the same Kremlin’s main ideologue, Vladislav Surkov).

Unconfirmed reports quote officials as saying Col Gaddafi was captured there. But his supporters are still resisting government forces in the town of Bani

Photo Reuters: Anti-Gadhafi fighters celebrate the fall of Sirte in the town on Thursday.

Walid, south-east of Tripoli. Col Gaddafi is said to be wounded. There is no independent confirmation of the reports. “He’s captured. He’s wounded in both legs,” National Transitional Council (NTC) official Abdel Majid told Reuters news agency. “He’s been taken away by ambulance.”

AFP news agency quoted another NTC official, Mohamed Leith, as saying that Col Gaddafi had been captured in Sirte and was “seriously wounded” but still breathing. A soldier who says he captured Muammar Gaddafi tod the BBC the colonel had shouted: “Don’t shoot!”

The situation remains unclear. No officials can to confirm the rumours that Col Gaddafi has been captured or, as the Reuters news agency is reporting, that he is dead.

Immediately appeared also the first reactions of the international community. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said Libyans should decide Col Gaddafi’s fate. “The fate of Gaddafi should be decided by the Libyan people,” Mr Medvedev was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies, AFP reports. Meanwhile, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte says the deposed Libya leader’s capture was great news if confirmed. The U.S. State Department on Thursday said it can’t confirm reports that former Libyan leader Col. Gadhafi has been killed. “I cannot confirm the reports about Gadhafi. I am very doubtful about these reports. According to our information Gadhafi was not even in Sirte during this time of fighting,” said Abdul Rahmin Al-Busin, a spokesman for the NTC military.

UPDATE: Libyan fighters say that Col. Muammar Gaddafi has died from wounds sustained during a final push to seize control of the strongman’s hometown of Sirte, claims that haven’t yet been confirmed by the country’s transitional authority or its Western allies that have been aiding the nine-month revolt. Members of the interim National Transitional Council, meanwhile, say that they cannot independently verify the news. The leaders of the NTC were expected to hold a separate press conference in the eastern city of Benghazi as well.

According WSJ: “The news of Col. Gaddafi’s death sparked widespread celebration in Tripoli. News readers on Libyan State Television repeated the earlier claim of his capture and announced the full liberation of the country.”

The official of NTC, Abdel Majid Mlegta, initially said Gaddafi suffered wounds to his legs, but later reported that the deposed Libyan leader was dead. “He was also hit in his head” Mlegta told Reuters. “There was a lot of firing against his group and he died.” Gaddafi’s body is being transported to a secret location in Misrata. Al – Arabyia Chanel said that received permission to records Gaddafi’s body.

President Dmitry Medvedev

Russia could have trouble keeping the two-thirds majority needed if it wants to change the constitution. In May, Putin formed the All-Russia People’s Front, a nationwide coalition of supporters, as backing for United Russia dwindled. The party’s popularity has slipped to about 40 percent after it won almost two-thirds of the vote in 2007. The 46-year-old Medvedev has kept the presidential seat warm until Putin can be re-elected next year and now has much to prove to voters after failing to carry out many of his promises as president or emerge from Putin’s shadow.

How did Medvedev to bury the chances of a new mandate and to comply willy-nilly the agreement made with Vladimir Putin ​​four years ago?

Let’s take a look at the main objectives set for the start of Medvedev’s term in the Kremlin office, and to what extent they seem to have materialized or not. For this I called to two experts in the field: Evgeny Mincenko, Director of International Institute for Political Expertise from Moscow and Vilhelm Konnander, specialist on politics and security in Russia and Eastern Europe from Stockholm and former President of the Swedish Society for the Study of Russia, Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. I asked them to give a score (1-5 points) on the agenda following objectives realization by President Medvedev:

1. Justice Reform; 2. Fight against corruption; 3. Improving the investment climate; 4. Respect for human rights; 5. Perception of Russia abroad

According to Evgeny Mincenko, the justice reform – a priority objective taken by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, immediately after the presidential

Evgeny Mincenko

election on 2 March 2008, may receive at most 1 point. Functionality and applicability unconditional letter of the law was and is one of the main leitmotifs of the measures taken so far by Medvedev, both internally and externally, but beyond words, concrete results have appeared only sporadically. In change, concerning Medvedev’s justice reform, Vilhelm Konnander told us that this is one area where Medvedev’s policies have been moderately successful. “It is also an area that has been a priority to the government. Thus, since 2006 there has been a slight improvement in the rule of law in Russia. Medvedev has simply had the guts to do some of the things needed to improve the situation – including sacking high-ranking officials. I would give Medvedev a 4 out of 5, for at least trying so hard for making the situation move in a positive direction.” Also about the fight against corruption he said: “Turning to corruption, this is a constant source of trouble and grief. Since 2003, there has been little improvement concerning corruption, and since 2005 the situation has only got worse and worse. Of course, this is a problem inherent in the Russian system, and cannot be blamed simply on Putin or Medvedev. However, the rise of Russian bureaucracy, growing out of proportions, is a recipe for disaster. The more bureaucrats, the greater corruption. Attempts to cut down on red tape have so far not been successful. Medvedev – as indeed Putin – would get a 0 in my opinion.” A little more generous, Evgeny Mincenko gave to the victories in the fight against corruption 1 point. In conditions of crisis, but also the need of foreign investment, president Medvedev puts more emphasis on changing Russia’s reputation and its close Western terms, the state chapter of law, justice and fighting corruption. The objectives are mainly contained in the document “Modernisation Partnership” signed with the EU.

But, really, what’s the use of Medvedev? “In essence, that is the core question of Medvedev’s presidency, insinuating that Medvedev would be nothing without the seemingly omnipotent Putin. In this view, Medvedev’s recent nomination of Putin for the Russian presidency is but a measure to put things back in order. It is true, tandemocracy will be preserved if Medvedev assumes Putin’s role as Russian Premier, but such a swap might merely be a temporary solution, leaving it open for Putin to depose of Medvedev in case reform policies turn sour” said Vilhelm Konnander. He added that: “This is what we all too often are led to

Vilhelm Konnander

believe when ranking or reviewing Russia during Medvedev’s presidency. So, all of a sudden, the entire question seems irrelevant and obsolete, as Putin is destined to move back into the Kremlin come March next year. Still, reviewing how roles and responsibilities between President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin have been both divided and shared since 2008, one might well reconsider the initial question: “What’s the use of Medvedev?” – The use of Medvedev is all too obvious by his role of Russian reformer. He simply tries to do what Putin is unable to do himself. In simplified terms, Putin is the balancer, trying to keep stability in order to widen the room for reform. The success or failure of reform is very much related to Putin’s performance. So, regarding Russian reform policy is as much an assessment of Putin’s power as it is of Medvedev’s policies. Without Medvedev, Putin would be left to his own devices in both trying to balance diverging political and economic interests, and trying to reform the country.” If from Moscow some aspects are seen in a worse registry than to the West (faced with its own problems by the economic crisis), the business climate as much interest and foreign investors. Evgeny Mincenko gave 2 point to the improving the investment climate objective, while his European colleague pointed 3. The economy, linked and, of course, vulnerable to fluctuations in global energy prices, suffered from its customers’ economic crisis in 2008-09 but used funds it had saved for a <black Friday> to get through. It has bounced back but foreign investors are still wary, and the rouble proved its weakness, and stocks have been under pressure for weeks. Russian assets trade at big discounts to other emerging markets. “As for investment climate, a combination of the WGI factors, would indicate an overall decline in preconditions for making business in Russia. Whether this should be attributed simply to decreased governance capabilities or to general economic decline may be a matter of dispute. Taken that government effectiveness has been relatively stable since 2008, and that we have only seen a slight decline in regulatory quality – all preconditions for making business – Medvedev’s presidency would get a 3, given the great challenges and difficulties posed by economic crisis” commented Konnander about his score. Remember, despite much talk of creating a more hospitable business environment, Russia today ranks 143rd out of 179 on the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom. It ranks 154th out of 178 countries in Transparency International’s most recent annual Corruption Perceptions Index.

But when we talk about human rights, the vision seems to be somewhat different. There is 3 points from Russian expert Evgeny Mincenko, while Swedish expert Vilhelm Konnander gave only 1 point. Why? Because “turning to human rights, Russia has been moving down a slippery slope for quite some time – at least over the last decade. A parallel to WGI’s indicate “Voice and accountability” shows a constant decline since 2002. Most probably, this is an effect of an increase in political stability – at least if I am to believe my own analyses since 2008. Human rights are at a low, and would get a 0, if matters could not get worse, so I guess it would have to be a 1″ explained Konnander his option. In change, when spoke about the perception of Russia abroad, Mr Konnander thinks “it is really something that is so deeply subjective, that there is little to be said. For ages, views seem to diverge between those of Russophobes and Russophiles, and there is little constructive to add to such positions. A qualified guess is that impressions of Russia are rather confused. With Obama’s Russia reset and Medvedev’s “liberal” outlook, the perception of Russia has probably improved on this basis, but at the same time this is balanced by uncertainties about what success Medvedev’s policies might have for now and in the future. Is there any continuity to reform? Furthermore, the situation has not got better by Putin looming about the walls of the Kremlin in preparation of an eventual return to presidential power. Putin’s return to the presidency will rather worsen than improve perceptions of Russia abroad.” On this objective, Mincenko gave the most points – 4. He not forgot that the Medvedev’s warmer relations with the West didn’t yield tangible results. Russia has still not become a WTO member. Despite the reset, the United States continues to build its missile defense shield in Europe and now Turkey. What’s more, many Russians feel that Medvedev betrayed Russian interests and global peace by not trying to block NATO’s military intervention in Libya. Russia has reasons to think that only strength commands respect. None of the objectives in discussion did not receive maximum – 5 points from the two experts.

Most political analysts and commentators say it seems unlikely at this stage that Medvedev will not become prime minister, but it cannot be ruled out. They say there are greater doubts over how long he will be able to hold on to the post, even though his popularity ratings are strong and not far behind Putin’s (41/50 percents). “Medvedev is using Putin’s tested pre-election tricks as he has little time left to come up with something new to bolster United Russia’s ratings,” said Evgeny Minchenko, director of the International Institute of Political Analysis. Another potential problem for Medvedev is the threat posed by former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, who covets the premiership. But Vilhelm Konnander wanted to mention that: “What is too often overlooked or ignored, is the extent to which the Russian government has actually gone over projections of the future. The challenges are overwhelming, but analysis and discussion have also produced plans and political initiatives to at least try to deal with the problems on a strategic level. One well-known initiative was the Putin plan, which was one of the stepping stones of Medvedev’s reform policy. Regrettably, much of these dicussions and policies have been discarded by Western analysis as merely Potemkin villages. Assessing Russian reform policies, one of the most comprehensive international indexes is the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI). Reviewing Putin’s two first presidencies, it is evident that – since 2003/4 – all indicators but one portray a downward slope. The one thing Putin acchieved was political stability. In all other areas, figures are either negative or relatively stable. The overall picture is one of stagnation.” Although Kudrin has been stripped of his role, he is — like Medvedev, but also like Secin, Shuvalov or Ivanov – a long-time Putin ally and the prime minister has said he will remain a member of his broader team. Team that in May 2012 will move to the Kremlin and will supervises activity of Prime Minister Medvedev’s government. Government that will have to take many unpopular measures that are needed, but normally will be postponed until after elections. Such comments by Putin, and Kudrin’s resigned, can threats Medvedev’s confidence. According Vilhelm Konnander: “To sum up, I would deem Medvedev’s performance as rather good, given the preconditions for reform policy. As we have seen for ages, Russia is a complex matter, and ruling Russia is a task of qualified statecraft, which few of its leaders have ever been able to master. It is true, figures are not impressive, but the use of tandemocracy is still evident. Even if it involves many factors that many would be and indeed are very critical of, what alternative is there for Russia – now and in the immediate future?”

The attempts of Medvedev’s team to build its own right political strategy to give him a chance for a independent career, without Vladimir Putin’s direct support, failed miserably and deserves a separate discussion.

For the majority citizens of Russian Federation, Medvedev’s presidency was characterized by liberal and technocratic ideas but did materialize nothing. His strategy to fight corruption by admitting the problem did break the taboo on discussing corruption, but thereby also increased public perception of the scale of corruption and open anger with the state of affairs. Medvedev’s team strategy counted on the empowerment of society. In a way the Russian people let him down. Thus it can not be a surprise that some Russian citizens have already accepted the idea that a strongman can be a better option.

Published Oriental Review Journal

UN Security Council meeting

The AFP mentioned that the resolution received four abstentions from Lebanon, India, South Africa and Brazil. Russia’s UN Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, said ” The Russian delegation has exerted all possible efforts since the beginning to reach a positive respond by the Security Council with regard to the events witnessed in Syria….we along with China forged a draft resolution in which we referred to the national sovereignty and the non-interference in Syria’s affairs including the military interference, in addition to calling for avoiding any confrontations and holding dialogue to achieve the civil peace and the national interest and to enhance the political and social life in Syria.” He added “The best way to get out of the crisis is to reject the provocations and to hold dialogue among all the Syrian parties…Russia continues its contacts with Damascus and it calls upon the Syrian authorities to be fast in making the changes and to release all the detainees who didn’t commit any criminal acts, in addition to holding dialogue with the opposition.”

In his speech at the UN Security Council, Syria’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Bashar al-Ja’afari, said “The unprecedented hostile language used in the statements of some ambassadors against my country and its political leadership stressed that Syria is targeted by its enemies due to its principled stance and not due to any humanitarian reasons…This language also reveals the biased policy adopted by some Western countries and their leadership due to Syria’s independent political stances.” He added that the Syrian leadership has immediately responded to the just popular demands as President Bashar al-Assad announced the comprehensive reform program and the Government started to implement it through a package of laws that enhance the democratic process and expand the participation of the citizens in the political and the economic process regardless of the foreign stances.

For his part, China’s UN Ambassador, Li Baodong, said “We call on the Syrian parties to reject all forms of violence, and we hope that the Syrian Government will implement the reforms soonest possible…The international community should provide a constructive help to facilitate the accomplishment of these goals, and we expect the complete respect of Syria’s sovereignty and independence.”

For her part, U.S Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice expressed her disappointment regarding the Security Council’s failure in adopting a resolution against Syria. Behind the Russian and Chinese vetoes of a U.N. resolution on Syria were not only serious differences over President Bashar Assad’s crackdown against civilians but concerns that even threatening sanctions might lead to a repetition of the NATO bombing campaign in Libya. «The result is that nearly seven months after the uprising against Assad began, the U.N.’s most powerful body remains deeply divided and unable to adopt a legally binding resolution to address the violence in Syria that by U.N. estimates has claimed more than 2,700 lives» said the United Nations officials.

The four European nations that sponsored the Syria resolution — Britain, France, Germany and Portugal — tried to gain Russia and China’s support. They also specified that any sanctions could not be enforced by military action. But when the text was sent to Moscow for review, word came back that it was unacceptable, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because consultations were private. No one would speculate on what happened in the Kremlin that led to the rejection of the resolution. But the veto provoked strong rebukes from the U.S. and Western European countries and human rights groups. U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice called claims that the resolution would be a pretext for military intervention “a cheap ruse by those who would rather sell arms to the Syrian regime than stand with the Syrian people.” Syrian allies Russia and China reportedly remain major arms suppliers to the Assad regime. In reply, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin strongly objected to the allegation, “especially coming from a country (The United States) which is pumping hundreds of billions of dollars of military hardware into the area.”

Remember: May 2001 – the United States imposed sanctions on Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, and six senior Syrian officials for human rights abuses over their brutal crackdown on anti-government protests. The White House announced the sanctions on Wednesday 18 May, a day before Barack Obama, the US president,  was to deliver a major speech on the uprisings throughout the Arab world with prominent mentions of Syria. The sanctions were part of “an effort to increase pressure on the government of Syria to end its violence against its people and begin transitioning to a democratic system,” a US official told the AFP news agency on the condition of anonymity. Also, the European Union put 13 Syrian officials on its sanctions list in what it described as a move to gradually increase pressure.
Meanwhile, Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, said his country would not support any UN resolutions on the use of force against the Syrian government. “As for a resolution on Syria, I will not support such a resolution even if my friends and acquaintances ask me about it” Medvedev told reporters during a rare news conference arguing that Syria must be allowed to settle its domestic affairs.

Today, the history is repeated. Nomadic capitalism of Nokia is moving to China. All employees of Nokia factory in Jucu – Cluj, about 2,200 people were called on Thursday for a work session with the participation and leadership of Nokia Europe. Nokia’s officials announcement has left speechless on most employees: Jucu plant closes by year’s end. “Even if Nokia leaves in five years, we will remain with lots of good things, roads, indoor plumbing, etc. Since its arrival, there is a prosperous future ahead of us.” said in 2008 Jucu mayor Dorel Pojar. Now the future does not look as promising, even though Nokia officials say that they will seek an investor to take over the factory.

Romania loses about 1.5% of  GDP

More, the Nokia closing is a shock for the entire Romanian economy. Low economic growth announced by the Government Boc could be zero next year. Or, even less, while the volume of exports (in euros) of mobile phones made in Jucu exceeded that of cars in Renault Pitesti. It means about 1.5% of Romania’s GDP, a figure that will disappear with the Jucu lockout. Apparently, all these could be made based on “bad luck” or a marketing error. According to Nokia officials, nobody could have predicted in 2008, crisis or dramatic loss of market share to Nokia. In reality, however, it’s not “lack of luck” or “crisis”, but a wrong concept of growth of an economy based on “global solutions” and “strategic investors”. And although he has officially recognized that such a strategy is counterproductive, Romanian President, Traian Basescu held that the best comment at the closing Romanian plant of Nokia is to lobby for another “strategic investor” – Gold Corporation Rosia Montana. But this is already another discussion. A discussion about which I will return in the future.

After the replacing of Mikhail Prokhorov in composition of the Commission for Modernization, Innovation and Technological Development of Russia’s Economy (the presidential decree was published Sunday on the website of the Russian Presidency), new week began under the auspices of not very peaceful. Within the framework of the 26th meeting of the Presidential Commission mentioned above, President Medvedev – in an access of recovery dignity (lost Saturday at the Congress of United Russia party) and that would have deserved a better

Meeting of the Commission for Modernization and Technological Development of Russia’s Economy

cause – sharply warned Vice-premier and Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin and ordered him to resign if he continued to disagree over economic policy. In reply, Alexei Kudrin, disciplined this time , a few hours later resigned… After all, according Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov, Kudrin will remain in Putin’s team … team that in May 2012 will move  to the Kremlin and will supervise activity of Prime Minister Medvedev’s government. Government that will have to take many unpopular measures that are needed, but normally will be postponed until after elections. Medvedev’s approach was a non-constructive, useless and more likely to turn against him.

So a brief recap: After Saturday’s announce about Putin – Medvedev rocade, Mr Kudrin (in the United States at the G20 meeting works) said in a press statement that “he could not serve in a new government next year if, as expected, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Mr Medvedev switch roles and he could not serve under Mr Medvedev if he becomes prime minister because of differences over budgetary policy” – said AP. Monday, president Medvedev not hidden their disapproval and pointed with his finger to Mr. Kudrin: “If, Alexei Leonidovich [Kudrin], you disagree with the course of the president, there is only one course of action and you know it: to resign. This is the proposal I make to you. You need to decide quickly what to do and give me an answer today” Mr Medvedev said. Mr Kudrin said he would consult with Prime Minister Putin. Later, he offered his resignation and it was quickly accepted.

Medvedev’s televised speech can be watch here.

So, that might be even more important move then Saturday’s Putin’s decision to run for the third term. Alexei Kudrin has been Finance Minister of Russia in the last 11 years, during the mandate of Putin and Medvedev presidency. It is considered a professional, with excellent relations both among bankers on Wall Street and the world of European finance. Although excellent relations with Prime Minister Putin, his relations with Mr Medvedev had been strained for some time. Recent he criticised the president’s plans to increase military spending. In my opinion should not be a specialist to notice that in times of crisis such a priority does not sound good. But politics has other reasons sometimes less visible.

Russia Finance chief resigned generated a lot of conflicting opinions. Mass media, social networking, renowned experts and politicians have said opinions. Of course, not without speculation. It spoke that public conflict between President Dmitry Medvedev and Minister Kudrin in fact has exposed deep cracks in unity over Vladimir Putin’s plan to return to the Kremlin. Most government and Kremlin officials kept a low profile on Monday. None rushed to side with Kudrin. But the presidential aide Arkady Dvorkovich wrote on Twitter: “Kudrin did much good for Russia, was one of my teachers. In the current situation, a decision was not, the reasons the President called”. There were some who argued that Kudrin’s departure is good news and it will escape Russia to the domination of  Wall Street′s bankers. I am not specialist in finance and economics … but I cannot believe that a fool can remain in office minister 11 years, even if talk of Russia. “Mr Kudrin’s resignation will worry foreign investors, who have praised his handling of Russia’s economy” says the BBC’s Steve Rosenberg in Moscow. “Putin seems to have decided that Kudrin’s head was a price to be paid to ensure his smooth succession back to the presidency,” said Timothy Ash, emerging markets economist at Royal Bank of Scotland. “The market will now fear that relative fiscal prudence, for which Kudrin was seen as a linchpin, will go out of the window.” Julia Tsepliaeva, Chief Economist Russia and CIS for BNP Paribas, said Kudrin’s departure could lead to populist government spending and quickly run down the rainy-day fund. “In addition, the dismissal of the strongest representative of the liberal economic wing of the government may result in the strengthening of the ‘siloviki’ (security forces) influence” she said. ”It is difficult to see how Mr. Kudrin’s resignation can be anything but market-negative” said Neil Shearing, chief emerging markets economist at Capital Economics Ltd in London. “With oil prices starting to slide and financial markets still jittery, now is not a good time for the government to lose its arch fiscal hawk.”

Of course, there are many questions. In some of them will find answers, others may not. It said that Kudrin, a close Putin ally who appeared to be frustrated at not being offered the premiership under the succession plan, was left with little option but to resign. Ok. Moscow policy even can to offer surprises of double or triple the agreements. But Kudrin is not a child, is not a neophyte (like Prokhorov, par example). How did such an emotional reaction? (Update – 29 September 2011:In his first statement after resignation, former Russian finance minister Alexei Kudrin said that his decision was not an emotional reaction. “In connection with the numerous commentaries about my resignation, I would like to clarify the following. My statement about how I do not see myself in the Cabinet of 2012 (after the elections) was well-thought out and considered. First, over the course of several months, despite my numerous objections, including public ones, decisions were made in budget policy that without doubt raise the risks to the budget.  And risks to the budget linked most of all to inflated appropriations for defense and the social sector would inevitably spread to the entire national economy.” Full statement can be read here.)

Agreed that the president Medvedev was surprised and humiliated after Kudrin’s statement in Washington. But the change a minister with 11 years of experience when the capital markets are crazy, the statements of key political and financial players are more worrying and any day could collapse the world financial markets ?! …What is the most important for Russia President? Pride or wisdom?

Such policy disputes are rarely seen and spoken aloud in public in Russia, where political life is usually orchestrated at the highest level, the agreements are made behind the closed doors and open dissent over policy is unusual. But there are already two such scandals in just two weeks: Prokhorov vs Surkov, Medvedev vs Kudrin. What is the price of Russia’s future stability? And who pays in the end?…

and, finally, why smiling relaxed Mr. Surkov during the Kudrin’s «verbal execution» by President Medvedev ??

1. It looks like there’s going to be a hot autumn in Moscow? Or is that just an illusion due to very vocal electioneering and of course the media accompaniment?

Meteorologically, as well as politically, Moscow feels the heat in July or August. October surprises more often happen in Washington DC; and the autumn so far should cause French President Nicolas Sarkozy to sweat – at least since all US charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn were dropped, and he returned to Paris. There has been the sense under the surface of Russian politics that an accident might happen – might even be provoked with an orange or rose colouring – and have destabilizing consequences for the run-up to the December 3 national parliamentary election. But so far there is no sign of an incident, protest, or issue around which Russian opposition might mobilize. The only one sweating at the moment in Moscow is outgoing President Dmitry Medvedev.

2. Will the mystery behind the Putin – Medvedev tandem unravel at the United Russia Party Congress or must we wait until December, after the parliamentary elections? What of importance will Medvedev put in his speech (if anything)?

The tandem isn’t a mystery — Vladimir Putin owns the bicycle, picks the road, applies most of the leg muscle. The fact that Medvedev also pedals can’t change that. Also, there’s nothing mysterious about wishful thinking – Medvedev’s. His attempts to campaign for reelection by stressing his positive differences with Prime Minister Putin – Mr Modern versus Mr Authority, Mr West v Mr East, Mr Young v Mr Old – have been fatuous; they have obscured the identicality of their underlying positions. Medvedev lacks the power to decide between powerful factions on any significant, big-money policy issue, and so far in his term, he has not done so. He therefore appears to be powerful when enunciating policy to which there are no objections; or when the issues are marginal and there is little resistance. The effect is magnified by western media, which want to see him retain the presidency in 2012, even replace Putin, if he could. This too is wishful thinking.

If you believe what you read in the Financial Times, the Economist, or Wall Street Journal, you might believe that privatization is a Medvedev policy priority, while state consolidation or renationalization is the Putin strategy. This is a mistake. It’s also a familiar prejudice from the voice-boxes of has-been imperialists still hoping for a foothold in Russia. Medvedev has been hoping he could push through a privatization or two of state assets in order to reward potential supporters from among Russia’s oligarchs. At this, Medvedev and the ministers supporting him – chief of staff Sergei Naryshkin, deputy prime minister Igor Shuvalov – have been a near-total failure. Naryshkin, for example, has been the closest state minister to Medvedev, but he ignored his April 2, 2011, decree removing state ministers from the boards of directors of state companies. The only privatization Naryshkin has stood for is the retention of his own seat as chairman of the board of the state-owned oil tanker company, Sovcomflot.

3. In the opposition parties can you see big changes in terms of representation and strategy? Should we talk rather of attempts to keep voters’ loyalty, and nothing more? Do you see lack of vision or a cold peace, acceptance of the dictates of political fate?

There are opposition forces, trends, individuals, sentiments, ideologies; but there are no opposition organizations complex enough to be called parties. Gennady Zyuganov sold the Communist Party to the oligarchs when Mikhail Khodorkovsky was paying his bills, and not even Khodorkovsky’s subsequent conviction and imprisonment have loosened Zyuganov’s tongue. His brain has atrophied in the meantime, and his grip on the communist party machine remains unbreakable, at least for one more parliamentary and presidential round. Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s Liberal Democratic Party of Russia is neither liberal, nor democratic, nor a party. The nearest thing to an opposition party in the broader European sense would be an alliance of environmental protection groups active across the country – if (it’s a big if) they could coordinate in the formation of a Green party. So far, they cannot – they haven’t.

In some theatres, it’s possible for the most wooden of puppets to convince audiences that they are their own masters and puppeteers, but turn on the lights – you can see the strings immediately. Still, the normal political equation – the inflation rate plus the unemployment rate = opposition – operates not less vigorously in Russia than elsewhere. Nut the latest economic results from the state statistics agency Rosstat suggest that this pain equation is moving against the electoral opposition, and in Putin’s favour. In August, real wages were growing at a year on year rate of 3.8%, the fastest monthly growth rate this year. Disposable income in August was up 1.4% year on year. Unemployment appears to be falling — it was 6.5% in July; in August it was 6.1%. These effects suggest that classic pork and trough politic, pump-priming and budget stimulus spending are reaching the voters — and with August retail sales up 7.8% year on year (compared to 5.7% growth in July), they are expressing their confidence by spending money. They will spend their votes the same way. In this situation, Putin is the one person and political force most Russians believe can deal effectively with the economic threats they consider priority concerns as security risks diminish. This is an empirical observation, not an ideological one. Accordingly, opposition forms within the parameters largely set by Putin. That’s also a personal achievement on his part. What he intends to achieve next is something he keeps to himself. So far.

4. But instead, look, runs more virtual noise on the Right Cause party. An oligarch – your well-known area – and a party in coma build the loyal opposition of power. But the recent scandal was surprised and creates confusion. Was it a project of the Kremlin or was a project’s Prohorov  - and he was accepted as controllable risk by the Kremlin (and when risk rised too much he was falls) ? Is Prokhorov a naïve person and he really not knows how is working political commitment?

Votes are like money in one respect, which all politicians, in Russia or elsewhere, must either understand, or go broke. They are promissory notes – tenders of support on condition the candidate who receives the votes understands that he is obligated to deliver on his promises with the power the votes ought to provide. In business, Prokhorov was already, according to those who have worked for him, famously short on attention span, long on self-absorption, and indifferent to minorities. Could he tell the difference between a buyer of shares in one of his companies – Norilsk Nickel until 2007; Rusal since 2010; Polyus Gold and Quadra (TGK-4) – and voters in an election campaign? The bare facts are these. Prokhorov claims he was invited to run the political splinter party called Right Cause during a meeting with President Medvedev in the spring. But there is no record of such a meeting with Medvedev until June 27. Two days earlier, on June 25, Prokhorov had already been voted by a party congress to head Right Cause and lead its campaign for the parliamentary election, due on December 3. At their June 27 get-together, Medvedev said: “Your ideas correspond on some points with my own views… I will think about them.” In fact, Medvedev had made a public showing that he didn’t back Prokhorov for the Right Cause post, and encouraged Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin to take the spot instead. That was on June 20, weeks after Prokhorov claims now he had gotten the nod. Back in May, it had also seemed that Prokhorov was the choice of the election advisors to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who didn’t need Prokhorov or Right Cause, so much as it seemed a good idea to ensure that Medvedev’s candidacy for a second term as president didn’t find a party platform and a national run for votes.

If that was Putin’s stratagem from the start, Prokhorov has proved to be the ideal stooge. In three months, the polls were showing that Prokhorov was good for an increment of just 1% on the Right Cause’s bedrock of between 1% and 2% of the electorate. A week ago, on September 12, Prokhorov began publicly running down a group he called “the Kremlin”. At first, he claimed he was under the gun for backing for a spot on the Right Cause ticket a man he claimed the Kremlin didn’t want – Yevgeny Roizman. The reason, Prokhorov told a newspaper interview, was he “may be…the only person in the country struggling against drugs.” Then Prokhorov intimated that his ideas were too radical, not to say democratic for “the Kremlin”. He spokes about rewriting the Constitution to give the State Duma powers to impeach government ministers, limiting the governing or majority party to 226 seats and reinstating direct elections for regional governors. According to Prokhorov, he had invested Rb 800 million ($27 million) in Right Cause, but the votes for the election list were “rigged” against him. Who had the power to say no to so much money? Prokhorov claimed there was a “puppeteer who misinforms the Russian government, putting pressure on the media, and the puppeteer’s name is Vladislav Surkov.” Also he said: “I am absolutely convinced that this is a personal initiative by Vladislav Surkov. From my experience I think that for quite a long time he has systematically misinformed the country’s leadership. And I, behold, I plan to meet with the president and the prime minister and in the first person to tell [them] how this whole process has occurred. As long as such people run the political process, politics in Russia is impossible, for my part I will do everything possible to bring Surkov down”. These were Prokhorov’s fighting words on September 15. Two days later, he announced: “there was no personal conflict with anyone″.

… In the end it was a conflict of ideologies,” Prokhorov wrote in on his blogs. “At this stage the conservatives won. I wanted change, but the system was not ready.” The prime minister’s and president’s schedules have yet to open and admit him. Prokhorov has a history of representing sentence-long slogans as public programmes or ideologies – paying for them as if they were prospectuses for outfits whose shares he controls like Polyus Gold. There is no evidence of votes sought or public endorsements issued for these “ideas”. In the only election contest Prokhorov had fought until this year – the Polyus Gold annual general meeting of shareholders in June 2008 — Prokhorov heaped vitriol on the one independent director who dared to challenge him – Lord Patrick Gillford. Prokhorov also lost the voting on that one. There is a pattern of his attacking the Russian leadership, and then retracting within 48 hours. In his relations with the French government, Prokhorov has demonstrated that he has been unable to procure either apology or acquittal and vindication on the charges that led to his brief imprisonment in January of 2007. Today, according to one of Prokhorov’s associates at his Onexim holding, the explanation for the loss of his political support was that he hadn’t had enough time. “Don’t put all the blame on him [Prokhorov], because he was given too little time to prepare the party for the elections and there was a lot of work to do, hence the party resistance he faced. Politics is a new field for him, and challenging, too. Moreover, he left all the people he trusts in his business projects, so he had practically no one to rely on inside the party.” Prokhorov himself is making the same complaint – “I had two and a half months to shake up the 83 regions. That is, in fact, less than one day for each region. I have had 20 meetings in the day, we met people, took away the best candidates, watched the party go with someone to the polls.” If Prokhorov hadn’t made a public fetish of keeping time more accurately, also more expensively than almost anyone else in Russia – wearing a Pierre Kunz Red Gold tourbillon – this calculation might be credible. Now that he’s down for the count, though, Prokhorov is the first oligarch to prove he has trouble counting whatever doesn’t belong to him.

5. Is the security strategy promoted by Medvedev a failure? After the recent signing in Washington of an agreement on placing missile systems in Romania, it seems that the missile shield in the form proposed by the US will exist with or without the consent of Moscow. Does this change the perception of the foreign policy achievements of President Medvedev? Does it predict a new type of Cold War confrontation? Or does everything depend on who will come to the Kremlin in 2012?

Medvedev made a mistake in backing the Anglo-American invasion of Libya and NATO’s regime change strategy. If he believed that move would secure a more consultative, less confrontational relationship with President Barack Obama on military strategy in Europe, around Russia’s frontiers, he started with a naive illusion and ended with a fundamental misjudgement. All the talk of button-pressing between Russia and the US has not diverted by a single iota the US Government from pursuing its military strategy in the Balkans. Of course, you might ask whether Obama has made even bigger mistakes than Medvedev, and proved to be as powerless at home, even weaker than Medvedev, since there appears to be no Obama consensus to which the US President himself holds to for long. At least Medvedev is still on his election bike – Obama fell off some time ago.

The Romanian missile case reflects the continuity of US policy, and thus the failure of both the Great Powers, Russia and the US, to change or improve on what has gone before. What the missile agreement means in terms of US intervention in Romanian internal politics has been revealed in some of the State Department cables released by Wikileaks, but I don’t presume to guess how effective the US program for regime change in Romania has been, or will be.

The Libyan War might have been a test of the so-called reset relationship, but it has not. I doubt Medvedev would have gone so public on the interventionist side,  had he not been reflecting a silent consensus among Russian officials, including Putin, that Muammar Qaddafi could no longer be supported. I don’t believe the public version, emphasizing Qaddafi’s attacks on civilian protesters, was the decisive reason for Russian policy in that case. There is a much more durable tradition in Russian policy to condemn human rights violations, but at the same time oppose intervention in the internal affairs of states. The inconsistency on this and other Russian policy positions towards Libya was made public by Russia’s Ambassador to Libya, Vladimir Chamov, whom Medvedev claimed credit for dismissing in April. In fact, Chamov was reassigned within the Foreign Ministry without being sanctioned. The Chamov episode was also unique in another respect – never had a serving ambassador publicly criticized the commander-in-chief. Perhaps Medvedev calculated that he should sacrifice Qaddafi in order to ingratiate himself as the “new look Russian”, “pro-western” presidential candidate. Perhaps Putin thought Qaddafi unreliable, erratic, potentially dangerous, and judged that if Medvedev wanted to expose himself on the western side, Putin didn’t see any disadvantage to his own interests. Medvedev has made a fool of himself  without a serious risk to the Russian state interest  – that may have suited Putin. The Libyan War is also the first time that Russia’s non-government policy establishment sided against the President on an open and explicit way. All threats Medvedev and his circle issued in reaction – for example, a threat to sack Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov – came to nothing. As the Islamist and fundamentalist elements in the so-called Libyan national opposition gain in strength and take control of the country, the Russian position internationally will be – we told you so.

 6. There is already a negative perception of Russia’s attitude to Al-Asad’s regime in Syria. Medvedev makes a new mistake at this time regarding Syria? What is you opinion?

 - Regarding Syria, Medvedev has not moved an inch from the traditional Russian policy consensus. The Kremlin will not tolerate another episode of regime change in the Arab world. Medvedev has reverted to form. This is all.

 7. Finally: What is your prediction about 2012 tandem president – premier?

 - Oh, that’s easy – the outcome of the presidential race is quite clear. Putin will rule. Whoever he decides on as his running-mate, and what title the latter is assigned, will not alter the political outcome. If Dmitry Kozak, another St. Petersburg lawyer and a long-serving junior minister of state, were to replace Medvedev, that would be worse for the oligarchs, better for the country than other candidates for the second spot. These candidates are much speculated about in chat shows, but their selection or deselection is little more than a weak signal of what coursew Putin will pursue in his third and maybe fourth terms. The question of Russian politics, the question for Putin is what he intends to do with the oligarchs – those individuals  who control the principal resources of the country, and dictate theft, corruption and deceit as a way of life.

Published - Cadran Politic, no. 86, October 2011

Soon, a new interview with John, an interesting discussion in his slightly informal style, about the hot autumn of elections in Moscow, steps of ‹russky tandem› dance (he knows to dance with bears from long time ago) and not only …

Filed under: Russia Tagged: autumn, Осенью, Хельмер, горячие, интервью, election, hot, interview, John Helmer, Moscow, тандем, танцы ]]> http://gabrielaionita.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/hot-autumn-in-moscow/feed/ 0 gabrielaionita http://gabrielaionita.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/the-struggle-for-influence-and-the-downhill-of-surkovs-strategy-games/ http://gabrielaionita.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/the-struggle-for-influence-and-the-downhill-of-surkovs-strategy-games/#comments Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:04:38 +0000 Gabriela Ionita http://gabrielaionita.wordpress.com/?p=1719 Continue reading →]]> Varianta extinsă în limba română poate fi citită aici.

- No, yesterday wasn’t November, 15 November… was 15 September

As I intuited two months ago (here) the Russian parliamentary elections (December 4 2011) and presidential election (next year) are certainly the place where the struggle for influence will become increasingly fierce. In main, the territorial influence. A battle fought, in general, within the walls of the Kremlin, away from the inquiring eyes of the press. Of course, its things are known, even though few speak openly about them. This seems to be also the stake about the recent scandal in the party Right Cause, party until yesterday managed of the businessman and the new initiated in politics, Mikhail Prokhorov.

Mikhail Prokhorov (left) and Vladislav Surkov (right) (RIA Novosti / Mikhail Klimentyev)

A huge media noise, which erupted yesterday following the split of Right Cause party and the uncomfortable declarations of party  leader Mikhail Prokhorov against to the «gray eminence» of Kremlin – Vladislav Surkov, was backed by a ″deafening silence″ of the Kremlin. Tandem Putin – Medvedev quietly followed daily agenda. All that I could hear was a huge drain of opinions pro and anti-Prokhorov. According to political analyst Stanislav Belkovsky, “the Russian president was disappointed by Mikhail Prokhorov in so that he had instructed Vladislav Surkov to liquidate him”. In change, Gleb Pavlovsky (himself into a smoldering conflict with Surkov after his expulsion from the Kremlin ) consider that: ”This conflict is beneficial to almost everyone except Surkov. The presidential administration has suffered reputational costs as well as made a number of tactical errors”. Is Prokhorov, his former party or his protégé Evgeny Roizman the background, essential problem ? I think not. The situation was in fact predictable. I will try to explain why.

Let’s take a closer look on the subject. So, according AP: “Russian tycoon Mikhail Prokhorov abandoned his efforts Thursday to build up a political party and enter in Russian parliament. Prokhorov said that he was unwilling to tolerate interference from the Kremlin”. What about speaking ? We speaking about a party which was from the begin considered a project of the Kremlin, had been expected to draw on the support of opposition-minded and pro-business voters ahead of the Dec. 4 elections for the State Duma, Russia’s national parliament. In the “managed democracy” system nurtured under Vladimir Putin‘s rule as president and now prime minister, most parties represented in parliament have taken their cues from the Kremlin. More, despite the repeated assurances by Prokhorov and his team that they are not tributary to the Kremlin, the public perception about the party did not suffer major changes. In this context, the allegations  against deputy chief of presidential administration, Vladislav Surkov should not surprise anyone. “We have a Master puppeteer in the country, who long ago has privatised the political system and who for a long time has misinformed the leadership of the country about what is happening in politics, who leans on the media, and who tries to manipulate public opinion” said Mr. Prokhorov. (As irony of Fate, when Prokhorov released his bellicose statements, the number of journalists around him was higher than his supporters ). But it is nothing new ! I can to remember Mr. Prokhorov that in a special coverage dedicated to the Kremlin Wars, the experts from Stratfor Global Intelligence considered the appointment – as chief of the Federal district for the North Caucasus  – of his close friend Alexander Khloponin a Surkov’s victory in the struggle for influence with Igor Sechin. Or that according an analysis published by Central Asia – Caucasus Analyst and signed by Kevin Daniel Leahy,  Suleiman Kerimov’s influence as a lobbyist to the Kremlin – strictly in relation to Dagestan’s political affairs – appears to surpass the influence of Vladislav Surkov. And others numerous examples can be… In such conditions, Prokhorov’s approach at most can be considered a shift between centers/clans of interests which orbit around the power from Kremlin. Indeed, a little more transparent and honest. It is difficult to estimate how “Welcome to real honest politics” (as he said) means his gesture. It is known, as I said, the symbiotic relationship between regional authorities and influential persons which to ensure their lobby to the government and presidential level. The counterfeiting lists of delegates to Congress means that someone wanted to secure his power of influence in these regions. I don’t know if Prokhorov’s rebellion came just an inner desire of justice or is an attempt to protect itself interests and also the interests of influential persons on whose support he was based. But I also said that the situation was predictable. The rigid «vertical of power» built by Surkov has reached full capacity and began to crumble silent since the birth tandem Putin – Medvedev. The attempts (mostly – unsuccessful) of the current president Medvedev to make the necessary changes did not give spectacular results, but have created waves of instability to the pillars of the system. So it was predictable a next step in the dissolution system.

I don’t know if Prokhorov’s projects on his political future will take shape. I do not even think that his gesture could be assessed, at this point, in the subconscious of the masses. But, I know that Surkov will survive this attack. VYS’s genius is not the amazing strategies, it is precisely in its ability to survive all the palace’s intrigues and the ability to speculation the weaknesses of others. And Humanity is not without weaknesses. But, Humanity mean also surprising changes of consciousness, which even the intuition of «eminences gray» cannot guess. Perhaps that is why humanity is so beautiful in its diversity !

PS: Opposition leader Boris Nemtsov wrote on his blog that he had warned Prokhorov that “Putin and Medvedev are too weak, too tainted with corruption and too afraid of competition to tolerate even as a joke ‘I want to be prime minister’ or even worse, ‘I may run for president’.” I think so… Mr. Putin will runs to Presidency and because he is a smart and wise man (has anyone doubts about ?? ) will do a smart and wise choice that cannot to give him headaches…and for the fans of La Vendetta – No, yesterday wasn‘t November, 15 November… was 15 September

UPDATE: 20 September 2011

“Grey Cardinal” of the Kremlin and the first public statement after allegations made by billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov

«Revival of a political life before elections was a predictable and normal situation» – has declared today on press – conferences in Ekaterinburg (Sverdlovsk) the first deputy chief of the Presidential administration of the Russian Federation, Vladislav Surkov, answering a question on last pre-election events in the country and the scandal around the party Right Cause. Also, Surkov said that “All is OK”, having emphasized that “our principles of work on political space will remain the same”. Well, Surkov has not explained what about kind of principles and old rules of the game he speaking …  maybe this time can to understand Mikhail Prokhorov too -  on other principle that says ‹better late than never›, isn‘t ?? …

According RIA NOVOSTI, Vladislav Yurevich Surkov (VYS) on Tuesday has presented new Plenipotentiary Envoy of the Russian President to Ural Federal District, Evgenie Kuyvasheva. VYS asked to those present at the ceremony in Ekaterinburg support, friendship and help for the new Envoy of President Medvedev.

Published - Cadran Politic, no. 86, October 2011

“As world leaders prepare to gather in New York for the annual United Nations General Assembly, please join us in a global conversation with the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, streamed live on Facebook, Twitter, Weibo, Livestream and UN Webcast. Our Moderator will put your questions to Mr. Ban.” says a public release on United Nations web page.

How to get started:

Tell them that you are “Attending” the event by visiting the Facebook event page.

Post your questions on FB page or  Twitter in English, French, Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Spanish, Portuguese or Swahili, before or during the live event. Questions in Chinese can also be posted on Weibo.

But back to the original topic. I say it is a type of “controlled Wikileaks” because even if at the first sight the information seem to be spectacular (so the chance to capture 100% the media and public attention), in reality these things were known long, and for it was not necessary to be an ‹insiders›. So, what is about in the documents were discovered in Kusa‘s private offices in Tripoli ?

To the chapter: Tabloid news - the papers reportedly include letters and faxes to him headed “greetings from MI6″ and a personal christmas greeting signed by a senior spy as “your friend”. Human Rights Watch emergencies director Peter Bouckaert said his organisation “stumbled across a room containing the files”. “These documents we found, their faxes start off ‹Dear Musa, thanks for the oranges you sent us, they were delicious›,” he claimed. One file reportedly details the UK’s help in drafting a speech for Colonel Gaddafi to make.

The Chapter: The triplet Bush – Blair – Gaddafi: Here we have a series of disclosures designed to counter the impact of another type of Wikileaks (which I have anticipated some time ago), uncontrolled and yet, despite all the assurances coming from the Libyan rebel camp, still not found: Colonel Gaddafi Wikileaks. A document contains information on Tony Blair’s meeting with the former Libyan Leader in 2004 and suggests it was Downing Street’s idea for the two men to meet in a tent. “No 10 are keen that the Prime Minister meet the Leader in the tent,” a letter from an MI6 officer says. “I don’t know why the English are fascinated by tents. The plain fact is that the journalists would love it.” Also among the files is evidence that the United States used Libya as a base for its rendition programme – transporting prisoners it believed to be a threat to its national security for further interrogation on foreign soil. Human rights organisations claim that the real purpose was to torture these prisoners outside of US jurisdiction. Mr Bouckaert said the documents about alleged CIA renditions to Libya included some on the man who is now head of the Tripoli Military Council, Abdel-Hakim Belhaj. “He was captured, abducted together with his pregnant wife and flown on the so-called black flight to Tripoli for his interrogation,” Mr Bouckaert claimed. There is no suggestion that the UK was involved in the rendition process but there are allegations from the secret papers that UK intelligence gave its Libyan counterparts information on dissidents to the Gaddafi regime who were living in Britain at the time.

During this arsenal useless information, also find and an interesting information to I referred in previous posting: weapons of mass destruction of Gaddafi. And from where we find that they do not exist. “Another document apparently shows that a statement given by Col Gaddafi saying that his regime was giving up weapons of mass destruction was put together with the help of British officials.” Since there is already a deal that Muammar Gaddafi will not come to be judged by the International Criminal Court in The Hague and also the chance as him to say what do not want his former friends to say are very low. Oil fields were divided fraternally among the bearers of democracy. So the need as he to be removed violent and quick from the picture of family world leaders slowly decreases. In rest, the same functional hypocrisy and typical western double standards: friends for benefits then enemies when not needed. We worth to remember – as Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi’s regime crumbled on August 23 after a rebel uprising and NATO bombing, United States President Barack Obama said: “For over four decades, the Libyan people had lived under the rule of a tyrant who denied them their most basic human rights.” Four decades in which it might think that Western leaders did not know where Libya on world map.

One aspect, however, was very clear from the beginning: the rebel forces could not beat Gaddafi’s troops without active support of Western allies at the ground, training, equipping and the all activities 3C (command, control and communications). When NATO took command of the air exclusion zone imposed (NFZ – no fly zone), those quasi-clandestine operations had to be turned parallel to NATO operations and in any case not have an active and visible tangent with NATO operational command.

The first news about the activities of land appeared in the press at the end of May, probably by Al-Jazeera footage and articles in the Guardian. Latest events in Tripoli and rapid conquest of most neighborhoods of the city, including Gaddafi’s fortified residence in Bab al-Aziz, revealed the participation in planning battles, and often involvement of allied ground forces. These forces included commando of British SAS, 2REP French (Groupe des commando parachutiste) and American Navy DELTA (according Politeia). Since from the beginning to set up the view that Gaddafi could be conquerable only if he loses Libyan capital, Tripoli, Western coordinators have developed the current plan, which is in the process of development in Tripoli. Prominent opposition members confirmed that the rebels had been shipping weapons into Tripoli for several weeks, in preparation for this uprising. After the British newspaper The Telegraph delivered an amazing headline: Libya: Colonel Gaddafi ‘flees’ to Venezuela as cities fall to protesters, Gaddafi delivered a speech via phone through Libyan media, announcing the date and time to prove his message wasn’t pre-recorded. One transcript of his remarks can be read here.

“Operation Mermaid Dawn” has succeeded, after six months of civil war, but viewed from afar the joy rebels in Tripoli is sad and lack of support on long term. An ephemeral euphoria. Behind that are 20,000 dead in these six months of confrontation. Mermaid Dawn will soon be replaced by the Midday Heat of oil wells blown up. And the rebels, who were decapitated, a few days ago, a gold statue of Gaddafi and turned into ruins Gaddafi’s residential, not seem to understand that these days, more strikingly resembles Tripoli with Baghdad in 2003. Slowly but surely Libya is likely to sink into the same species of chaos as in Iraq. Perhaps a swift capture of Gaddafi would provide more or less stability in Libya. But the analysts believe that if we make a parallel with Iraq War, we see that the hanging of Saddam has not changed much for good things. But Gaddafi is not yet found. And the reward offered to catch not yet found willing betrayal. Between two reports of accident  from Fukushima, International Atomic Energy Agency issued a warning of some possible nuclear deposits that would have Gaddafi and that he could uses in the manufacture of “dirty” bombs. It is possible that information is correct. But who can believe it, after never found weapons of mass murder of Saddam Hussein ? Yes, I speak about those famous weapons of mass destruction mentioned in the counterfeit reports of special services that gave the Americans reasons and justification of the invasion of Iraq. The same justification could be base for hunt of Gaddafi by international forces – a justification which Prime Minister Putin seems to missed when recent he condemned again the events in Libya. In reply, Rupert Colville - UN human rights spokesman in Geneva – said: “Assassination is not within the rule of law. If he can be captured alive and the arrest warrants carried through, obviously that’s the best solution”, referring to the hunt for Gaddafi. On the other hand, even if it will catch on Gaddafi, Libya’s stability is not assured from the start. This country means too much fragmented tribes and clans which unlikely to listen to the Transitional Council who comes to power. And while barrels of oil will take the road of the West, will find many dissatisfied who will say that “Gaddafi’s time was better” or “Down the Council !” Then they will blow up a street in Tripoli…or in Benghazi; just only to show their power. Welcome in the morning of a new Iraq !

The violence had its genesis in the fatal police shooting of Mark Duggan, a 29-year-old father of four children who was gunned down in Tottenham on Thursday under disputed circumstances. Britain’s riots began Saturday when an initially peaceful protest over a police shooting in London’s Tottenham neighborhood turned violent. That clash has morphed Sunday into a general lawlessness in London and several other cities (Bristol, Liverpool, Birmingham) that police have struggled to halt. Already traditional, social networks were, of course, part of the coordination of actions. Summary of the five days of violence: heritage buildings on fire, destroyed dozens of cars, shops and people robbed on the street, four dead and over 768 people have been arrested in London and 167 charged — including an 11-year-old boy — and the capital’s prison cells were overflowing. Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service said it had teams of lawyers working 24 hours a day to help police decide whether to charge suspects, allowing them to quickly clear police station cells. A total of 111 officers and 14 members of the public have been hurt so far in the rioting, including a man in his 60s who was attacked as he attempted to put out a fire started by members of a mob.

It is difficult to find suitable terms for the phenomenon as accurate as radiography. Those who break windows, steal everything they can from shops, threw stones at police and burn cars are generally young people between 7 and 27, and from families of immigrants. Matei Visniec considers it is inappropriate to speak about revolt. He opts for the term “social fire”, with periodic outbursts because it has reached a critical point of social problems. The word “revolt” is not quite right because the groups do not present any coherent claims, although they have much to complain about the society in which they live. It might be called “riots”. Anglo-Saxon press talks about “racial riots”. In fact, we have here a typical racial motivation: the police shot a black guy in suspicious circumstances. The Voice, Britain’s leading black newspaper, has claimed that both Duggan and his best friend, 23-year-old rapper Kelvin Easton, known as Smegz, “had links to the Star Gang”, one of several criminal groups in north London whose turf wars have caused at least three deaths over the past few years. In reply, close family members blaming the media for “twisting the truth” and telling “all these lies” about Duggan. “He was a good man. He was a family man, was a good Dad who idolised his kids” one relative told The Guardian. The press has given back to the allegations. History of racial persecution is really generating chills. That’s why most of us react defensively in the face of such accusations. And most likely not to be accused of racism authorities reacted inefficient, leading to the spread of violence.

In such cases could be possible as the discrimination to be itself generating racial discrimination? What motivations behind the invasion of violence?

Here are some possible explanations: Social – Young people with an uncertain status. Many violent young come from families of immigrants but are born in the Kingdom. Which does not, however, gave them equal opportunities. Mostly their misfortune comes even from their parents’ inability to integrate into British society. But also comes from the failure of multiculturalism promoted as an emblem of democracy. They belong to anyone. And they can not love a country that in their view just to ensure their survival. Lack of sense of belonging to society itself brings serious problems of social integration. It’s good to remember that the need for social belonging is manifest in many cases by integrating the various gangs in urban areas. Also they have the lack of prospects, unemployment and the cuts jobs. It is true that Tottenham is among London’s poorest boroughs, with 10,000 people claiming jobseeker’s allowance and 54 applicants chasing every registered job vacancy. Is interesting to observe that the extremist English Defense League said: “Maybe individual police officers are too fearful of being later blamed if they injure someone but the reality is the human rights of these violent criminal looters have been placed way above the right of decent people to walk the streets, to sleep soundly in their beds and to expect the police will protect their businesses and livelihoods”.

Temporal and local context – We are in the summer period when much of the urban population still afford to vacation. We have such a moment “sensitive” of those who consider themselves prisoners of their condition of “marginal” or “disadvantaged.” After the riots in France, the Paris authorities thought more programs for young people in summer. Also important to notice: the disorder has caused heartache for Londoners whose businesses and homes were torched or ransacked, and a crisis for police and politicians already staggering from a sputtering economy and a scandal over illegal phone hacking by a tabloid newspaper that has dragged in senior politicians and police.

Psychological – Professor John Pitts, Director of the Vauxhall Centre for the Study of Crime (University of Bedfordshire, UK) and expert in criminology, said robberies helps those who feel powerless to feel suddenly strong. Also, many young people participating in these actions because they are simply on holiday and the nights are longer. It’s fun for them. He points out that there is a team spirit. The more they are, the more they feel they have control. “You can not start a rebellion on their own. At one point, a large group facing the police feel they have control” said John Pitts. Psychologists say that a person loses the moral identity in a large group, and empathy and guilt, which makes us not as a criminal act, disappear. “When you belong to a relatively anonymous group, you do what you want,” says James Thompson, a psychologist. It also speaks of a psychological mechanism by which young people take an immediate moral code: “rich people have so many things that I do not have. It is fair to take them”. Experts point out that there is evidence to suggest that gang leaders tend to have psychopathic tendencies. Young revolutionary mentality can be compared with the ultras of football teams are often the protagonists of street violence.

Favorable global context: Arab Spring triggered youth energies of Maghreb, the economic crisis of Europe has driven the streets on the Greek and Spanish. Recently, Israel has been unprecedented social challenge that most products have become too expensive. “It is no coincidence that the worst violence London has seen in many decades takes place against the backdrop of a global economy poised for freefall. The causes of recession set out by J K Galbraith in his book, The Great Crash 1929, were as follows: bad income distribution, a business sector engaged in “corporate larceny”, a weak banking structure and an import/export imbalance. All those factors are again in play” said the journalists from The Telegraph. If we add to the list seriousness of the situation in Syria and Yemen, can see that social tensions globally are very high such that the shutter button can be anything from a measure of a government austerity plan to a clip from Anonymous posted on social networks.

Is difficult to predict how things will evolve. Main key: this events are not just about United Kingdom. Because although we communicate globally, we do business globally, eat and dress the same brand products, not yet know how to think globally. It’s a contagious energy that sweeps over crowds, causing them to act in ways they would never act alone. The world’s economic state and the widening financial gap seem to be the fuel to the fire. Events and people are linked, they influence each other, are interconnected globally much more than we are accustomed to routinely admit.

Are such manifestations a viable solution? Of course, not! But there is a warning that the things are not on the right track. Human society is becoming, despite technological advances, a primitive “global village“. Human society has a plurality of diseases manifested by symptomatic crises: social, political, economic, spiritual and of value items. And, as in any chronic illness, painkillers – populist type no longer effect. More, recently, painkillers are not longer available. Sometimes surgery is necessary. Unfortunately, the society is not a patient can be operated under anesthesia. Who has the courage to take in his hand the scalpel and not fear of being accused of “mal praxis”?

Published - Oriental Review, August 10, 2011

A Ukrainian court in Kiev sanctioned on Friday the arrest of the country’s former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko. The move came during a court hearing on abuse of offices charges stemming from Tymoshenko signing a 2009 Russian-Ukrainian gas deal (these were secret negotiations with the Party of Regions for a grand coalition and a gas contract with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Although the contract played a positive role in removing RosUkrEnergo from the Ukrainian-Russian gas trade she has never explained why she agreed to such a higher base price for gas than that in western Europe or why the transit fees Russia pays would remain  frozen and market rates would not apply to them but only to the gas Russia sold Ukraine). About 30 police officers entered the courtroom to detain Tymoshenko after the judge announced the decision, according RIA NOVOSTI. Tymoshenko, the country’s top opposition leader, has criticized the trial as an attempt by President Viktor Yanukovychto bar her from elections and mocked the hearings. She has refused to rise when addressing the court, as required, and routinely insulted the judge. Her supporters have repeatedly disrupted hearings. Her supporters in court, including national lawmakers, squabbled with police, trying to prevent them from driving her away in a prison car and shouting: “Shame! Shame!”

Subsequent the ex-PM arrest, on the site of Yulia Timoshenko was posted a statement, personally written by ex-prime minister before the arrest:
‘I want to make a statement in connection with the implementation plan for my arrest. It is clear that this is a massacre with a political opponent, but I do not know.  I want to say that I have no inclination to suicide. What tricks are done with Kirpa and Kravchenko, they should not repeat. I will never finish his suicide. Everything I do – this is my struggle against the criminal regime of Ukraine by its rightful place in the world. Glory to Ukraine.Yulia Tymoshenko ‘.

For the common person getting behind the bars indicates the tragedy. But politicians in its mass – is not quite ordinary people.  For some of them, no matter how cynical it may sound, the prison cell is a catalyst for a career. And analysts seem to agree that the current session after the bars will be in benefit of Yulia Timoshenko.
In fact this is not the first experience of this kind for former Ukrainian prime minister. Tymoshenko has ever been in jail – she was in prison Lukyanovka in 2005, when she was charged with bribery in the $ 79 million by ex-Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko.  Then, Ukraine’s Supreme Court quashed all criminal charges and prosecution against Tymoshenko. Later she successfully returned to the forefront of Ukrainian politics, so that what appears today to be a defeat for gas princess could become a big problem in the future for leaders of power in Kiev.

A recent pools show widespread disenchantment with the authorities, including in the home base of the Party of Regions, at the direction Ukraine is going, high inflation, growing gulf between elites and the public and widespread perceptions that the authorities are helping the oligarchs and big business while  forcing small-medium businesspeople to pay higher taxes. Notice, just two month ago, ukrainianweek.com wrote: “Tymoshenko has greatest responsibility to prove she can learn from her mistakes as current opinion polls show that she could (if she is not given a suspended sentence or imprisoned and thereby allowed to stand) enter a second round in 2015. In the 2010 elections she lost by only 3%. Tymoshenko should not count on being elected by winning the support of Ukrainians who vote negatively against Yanukovych (which will be many more in 2015 than in 2010). Tymoshenko did not have a clear, pro-European platform in the 2010 elections and to win in 2015 would require her to analyse her mistakes in 2010 and earlier mistakes in permitting deputies to join BYuT who have defected. She also needs to stop referring to “revolution” and the Arab world. Ukraine is both not Russia and Egypt”. So, in 2012-2015, Ukraine will be in a transition between two elections and will resemble Ukraine in 2002-2004. The public mood by 2012-2015 though will be far more bitter than it was on the eve of the Orange Revolution.

UPDATE: 09.08.2011 – According euronews.com after the judge refused a third request to release Ukraine’s former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, scuffles broke out as special force officers clashed with Tymoshenko supporters who have vowed to continue their street protests.

UPDATE: 29.09.2011 – Ukraine’s former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko on Thursday denounced her trial as a “political lynching” as she gave her final statement in a process that could see her jailed for seven years. The statement coincides with a trip to Poland by her political rival President Viktor Yanukovych for meetings with EU leaders where the government is expect to come under huge pressure to end her trial and detention. “This trial is a classic case of political lynching,” said Tymoshenko. “No document has ever proved any guilt. They (the authorities) have falsified this entire affair,” she added.

UPDATE: 11 October 2011

If a European aid needs abroad and country of origin has no embassy or consulate, the Commission states that all EU citizens have certain rights deriving from European citizenship.

“For example, if your country is not represented, you can seek embassy or consulate of another EU country. This right applies to situations commonly encountered, such as theft of a passport, a serious accident or illness and in crisis situations – such as recent events in Libya or Syria” said an EC recent statement published on its website.

• Why I have not commented on the tragedy of Oslo ?

Because I refuse to be a marketing tool of a psychopath. I will not even write his name because it actually wants. I think the media terribly wrong this time, and dissected for days, until the level of detail, the thinking, behavior and life of a madman. Of course, we can to talk about multiculturalism, about failure transplant of cultures and religious beliefs sometimes totally opposed as visions, about non-social integration and the lack of clear European programs to prevent the problems caused by immigrants. Maybe it’s a good time to talk realistically about these issues. But to seek to find a justification for the gesture of a man obsessed by fantasies, with sick minds (who wants dead Norwegian prime minister but failing that, killing nearly a hundred innocent young Christians, although he hates the Islamists ), this is the competence of specialists in psychiatry not the media.

Filed under: Europe Tagged: Europe, non-social integration, Norway, Oslo, sick mind, tragedy ]]> http://gabrielaionita.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/why-i-have-not-commented-on-the-tragedy-of-oslo/feed/ 0 gabrielaionita http://gabrielaionita.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/terror-attack-in-norways-capital-oslo-shocked-the-world/ http://gabrielaionita.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/terror-attack-in-norways-capital-oslo-shocked-the-world/#comments Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:09:25 +0000 Gabriela Ionita http://gabrielaionita.wordpress.com/?p=1628 Continue reading →]]> The news shocked the whole world. The beauty and quiet Norway was the target of a terrorist attack ? Almost incredible. If there is something incredible nowadays…

According Reuters, a bomb devastated the main government building in Norway’s capital Oslo on Friday, killing two people and 15 people were injured; also a gunman wounded five people hours later in a shooting at a youth camp of Norwegian Labour Party. It is not clear whether or how the incidents were linked. Though the bomb attack was on the very heart of power in the small Nordic state, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg was safe. Notice that Norway is a country with an extremely low crime rate. More, political violence is virtually unknown in a country known for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize and mediating in conflicts, including in the Middle East and Sri Lanka. Attack was no claim of responsibility. The first suspicion hanging over Al-Qaeda. NATO member Norway has been the target of threats, if not bombs, before, notably over its involvement in conflicts in Afghanistan. The attack came just over a year after three men were arrested on suspicion of having links to Al- Qaeda and planning to attack targets in Norway. Another hypothesis is aimed at the involved of Norway in the NATO bombing of Libya, whose leader Muammar Gaddafi has threatened to strike back in Europe. In change, Al Jazeera said that Mullah Krekar, founder of the Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam, who had terrorism charges filed against him on Tuesday, is accused of threatening the life of a former minister . “Norway will pay a heavy price for my death,”he said. “If, for example, Erna Solberg deports me and I die as a result, she will suffer the same fate.” Norway is a founding member of the United Nations, NATO, the Council of Europe, and the Nordic Council.

UPDATE:  Number of victims seems to be much larger than originally thought. CNN speak about 17 dead at youth camp on Utoya island. PM Jens Stoltenberg confirmed in a press conference that aggressor is a Norwegian citizen. Also, he said that claim attack was not confirmed.

As already I anticipated some time ago, at the recent meeting the EU Finance ministers agreed, for the first time, that they could reach a selective bankruptcy for Athens. These actions and an unraveling uncertainty followed the Euro zone’s failure Monday to come up with a comprehensive second bailout deal for Greece, worth $120 billion. Holland Finance Minister Jan Kees Dutch Jager said at the end of the meeting that the European Central Bank still rejects the idea of bankruptcy for Greece. However, the 17 euro zone countries do not exclude default because need to have more options, due to drastic tightening perceptions of Italy and Spain for fear of contagion. Agency Moody’s changed the credit rating of Ireland, from “Baa3″ to “Ba1″ with a negative outlook, retrograde rated in “junk” and warning that the state will need a new package of bailout from the international financial institutions (previously Moody’s downgraded Portugal, citing similar reasons.). The Irish were upset. They were very angry. Just as was Greece in early May. An unnecessary and inefficient reaction. Ireland has implemented, of course, like other countries, according to IMF, austerity policies quite drastic. But, despite the austerity policies reduce the budget expenditures also have fatal flaw to further reduce budget revenues by contracting economy, the inevitable consequence of tax increases included in the policies of austerity and declining purchasing power driven by some cuts revenue. So the budget imbalance is not resolved. So just weakens the economy of that country. Also, Moody’s gave us a seemingly good news. Good to calm a little the capital markets. Italy is a solvent country. “Most of the titles have a long-term maturity, even though spreads rise, debt is sustainable” said Moody’s analyst Alexander Kockerbeck in an interview with Italian daily Il Messaggero. However the cost of insuring debt against the entry of Italian state in default exceeded the calculated cost for Bulgaria and Romania, according to Wall Street Journal Europe. The situation shows how little matter the official credit rating of a state. Both Eastern European countries are assessed by Fitch to BBB-, it means six levels below that of Italy.

But reduce rating Ireland affected the capital shares and the euro traded in Asian markets. Euro depreciated to the minimum the last four months against the dollar. Dollar that, also, does not feels very well due to bad news that are coming from the United States. President Obama, despite the strong appeal to Congress to find a balanced approach to deficit reduction, seems unable to avoid an “economic Armageddon”. Wednesday, Credit rating agencies moved closer to an unprecedented downgrade of the U.S.’s debt amid deteriorating talks in Washington, with president Obama abruptly walking out of a key meeting with Republicans seeking a deal to raise the federal borrowing limit. Minnesota State has already declared bankruptcy on July 1. In the first three months of 2011, 500 wealthy Americans have given up their citizenship. Now they are happy: no taxes ! As U.S. firms, they have a much easier solution – simply move their business in more profitable countries, where not must to pay for social protection and where the wages are lower: China, Malaysia, Hong Kong, India … even Russia and Poland.

Approximately this is the general picture sketched more or less apocalyptic, in which the humanity is evolving at this time.

“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws” — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

This year, on August 15, marks 40 years since the U.S. unilaterally abandoned the gold standard, ie full convertibility of the U.S. dollar in gold. On August 15, 1970 to put an end to the Bretton Woods system established in 1945 and President Richard Nixon unilaterally decided to freeze the dollar’s convertibility into gold, which turned the U.S. currency in cash changeover (fiat currency).

Austrian school economists say that no gold standard has enabled central banks to issue currency without restrictions, prerogative that they have abused, which led, ultimately, the formation of speculative bubbles in decades. On the other hand, fans of British economist John Maynard Keynes theory held that gold norm is a “barbarous relic” that not allow the state to use monetary policy to adjust the economy. In fact, we had 40 years of hidden inflation and financial turmoil. An unrealistic world financial system, protected by a global political system depended and blind to the greed of fat cats from Wall Street and other places where the money never sleeps. And the result could not be other than what we see today.

 An honest bankruptcy is healthier than a long illness !

 It speaks more often of some euro area’s exit, it takes into account the return to gold standard. The analysts on both sides of the Atlantic are singing funeral of the welfare state. Public finance crisis intensified in recent time increased the likelihood of a scenario of “hard landing” for the world economy. The expected reunion of the European leaders seems to be a session of commandment on board of the Titanic. The ship is adrift and the insidious water is gathering in the engines room. And miraculous solutions aren’t. Importantly, however, is to recognize the gravity of the situation. Hypocritical promises have no meaning. Some citizens have already noticed and begin to create panic. And that’s not convenient. The world’s leadership still hasn’t finished loading boats for themselves and their friends. Also, there are simple guys who were tired of the false sound of orchestra and they begin to understand how the things run. Most are scared. Between the euro and dollar, the choice is useless. The journalists began to scream about shipwrecks, diving, sharks financial, apocalypse and other ones. Luckily, the world still largely considered them batty and stupid. But their voices begin to multiply. Some desperate people were thrown overboard. And others have resigned and turned back to listen the orchestra. Most intelligent people made ​​rafts and put aside the reserves they could find and now paddled to the nearest island. Some of them scream from a distance trying to convince others that the ship is sinking. But the orchestra plays and it is difficult to understand what they say.

There are some alternatives. Even if these cannot to deliver results overnight. And the suffering of population is unavoidable. It is advisable to stop the political music, to get off the boats and save what can be saved. Because the world debts clock alarming ticking, the ship is more difficult to control and time is running…

Published – Oriental Review, 14 July 2011

Update: 21 July 2011

European leaders agreed on Thursday to provide a second bailout package for Greece and drastically expand rescue funds to prevent financial crisis spreading through the eurozone.

According AFP, European Union president Herman Van Rompuy said the rescue deal would be financed by both the EU and the International Monetary Fund. European governments and the IMF will contribute a total of 109 billion euros. The private sector’s share will amount to 49.6 billion euros.

Basescu voiced the scandalous statements back on June 22. They were dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the beginning of the Great Patriotic War. On June 22, 1941, the Romanian troops along with the Germans crossed the border into the USSR and later occupied a considerable part of Moldova and Ukraine, including Odessa and Nikolaev. Bessarabia (the main part of Moldavia), Chernivtsi and Odessa regions of Ukraine were made a part of Romania, and a special administrative unit of Transnistria (Zadnestrove) was created on the rest of the occupied territory. Speaking on June 22 at B1TV TV channel, he acquitted Antonescu’s actions 70 years ago. “I would also give such an order. We had an ally. Under those circumstances I would have done the same,” said Basescu, justifying the actions of the Romanian marshal. Further, the president urged not to blame Antonescu for the deportation of local Jews and gypsies. Basescu even managed to find a “Russian trace” here. “We forget that the Romania head of state at the time (King Michael – Ed.). Antonescu was the Prime Minister. To one we pay homage and return the property, while we make the other a war criminal. Why? Just because one of them was a Russian servant? ” Basescu said. Perhaps he meant that after the war Mihai renounced the throne and was awarded the Soviet Order of Victory.

After Wednesday night, at a week after the troublesome episode, President Basescu reiterated his statements, claiming that it has nothing to retract, the Russian Foreign Ministry took a short break from preparations for the Russia-NATO Council (to be held in Sochi on July 4 and when the President Basescu’s statements can be used as additional argument on Russian concerns about missile shield to be installed in Romania) and on its website was published a statement that condemning the statements of Romanian President. “Russia is indignant with the remarks of the President of Romania. Such a statement, particularly made on the sad day of the 70th anniversary of the Great Patriotic War, during which our people have lost 27 million lives, cannot be explained either by the current political circumstances, or answers to the provocative questions of the journalists,” said Alexander Lukashevich, the spokesman of the Russian Foreign Ministry. The exchange of words seems to continue in public in the same unconstructive way specific of recent years in bilateral relations between Romania and Russia.

Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs published in reply a press release where says that ”has noted with surprise the statement expressed on behalf of the Russian Foreign Ministry, referring to some comments by the President of Romania on historical themes. Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs considers completely inappropriate language used in Russian official statement on this subject (…) and consider unfortunate and unfounded public launch such a violent reaction of unacceptable language, without complete information, and minimal prior diplomatic interaction“. Also, Romanian President said that he not considers inappropriate to discuss historical truths that were accepted even Russia itself. “I do not understand what is so insulting, because the Soviet Union no longer exists. We have a relationship with the Russian Federation, but when it comes to a debate about the Soviet Union, this is a discussion about something that is already in the past,” said the Romanian President, commenting on the scandal.

Romanian president was accused on several occasions that he is inspired by Vladimir Putin’s dictatorial behavior. Moreover, in the bilateral talks at the NATO Summit 2008 in Bucharest, Putin launched the idea of ​​a visit of Romanian leader to Moscow. Visit which has no found place in the full agenda of the new Kremlin leader Dmitry Medvedev. It seems that President Basescu’s frustrations sometimes seem stronger than diplomacy that to be a second nature to the highest state representative function. But I also believe that the Russians should not be so upset that the President (of a small country from uncivilized part of Europe and in close proximity of Russia Federation) with epigonic habits, desperately trying to be as cynical as the hero of the last eleven years of Russia, Vladimir Putin !

Beyond the irony of the comment, I see that such statements in public space maintain  growing international tension and personally I don’t think its bringing the expected votes. Neither Russia nor in Romania. Priority problems of the citizens are quite different (austerity measures, lack of jobs, a poor health and education) and nationalist extremists are declining percentages. I also believe that for Russia to claim an anti-Russian attitude of a NATO member, placed in its neighborhood can bring additional pressure on missile talks strategy, but will not change anything essential in view of the West.

I cannot avoid to notice disgusted: politicians remain politicians even on the brink of chasm – always other are guilty. Greek PM started his speech before the vote with a condemnation of the previous government’s (under the New Democracy party) working situation with Europe. And opposition leader felt the need to answer the charge.

Finally, the Greek Parliament decided: the austerity bill was accepted with 155 Yes votes. The vote in Parliament on the draft austerity was crucial for further international financial aid for Greece and for the euro area which was in danger in case of failure. But there is poignant view among economists that with or without positive vote have only a postponement of the disaster.

Analysts say that Greece equally Argentina Reloaded. The difference is in Greek debt figures, which are much higher than those of Argentina for two decades ago. The events in Greece have the potential to completely change our world and not necessarily a positive change. Many analysts speak of a matter deficits Greece absurdly high public spending, arguing that there can be identified root of evil. But it is very likely not at all. The current crisis is not necessarily of Greece, but rather the banking system. Even if political leaders are reluctant to declare it systematically, preferring to point to the Greek government. From time to time, world leaders gather at international summits and forums where before the cameras they say sententiously that things have changed in the global financial system. And that’s all.

Bankruptcy Greece and exit from the euro area or a new financial aid (who, what, from where ?) are two equally bad options. EU commissioner Olli Rehn insisted that «there is not a plan B». But even the solution is as always to choose the lesser evil just for to delayed the same end ?

However, if the information below is confirmed, the equation is changing rapidly and radically. Germany prepares its exit from the euro area, shown in a paper published by the British Daily Express, took over the International press, showing that Germany’s central bank had started to print again DM. Notice that yesterday Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao attended at Chinese-German economic forum in Berlin and after met Chancellor Angela Merkel at her office. The discussions agenda of the two leaders also was sovereign debt crisis and in special the situation in Greece.

How to survive the coming end of the euro zone – an interesting vision by Mattew Lynn can be read here.

“It is impossible and unnecessary to manage the country from one point. Especially, if we are talking of such a country as Russia” Medvedev said and it was enough for journalists to announce (again!) an attack on the siloviki system owned by Putin and the intention of young president to distance himself from his protector, Russia’s prime minister, in the run-up to next year’s presidential election. Sure, the political battle means confrontation. A confrontation of ideas, mainly, when speaking about democratic regime. A confrontation of measures and programs that to improve the lives of people who go to the ballot boxes.
Hence to believe that two-headed eagle of Russia will break in two pieces just for the sake of confrontation and for media sensationalism is a long way. Why I think that we are currently in a Potemkin fight – more appearance than reality ? Let’s take a look. Somewhat more in detail. Customer’s materials, as one might say …

Last week, Vladimir Putin holds a meeting of the Popular Front’s Coordinating Council and said: “The front’s tasks are not limited to taking part in the elections to the State Duma. We must look towards the future and draft a long-term development strategy. I am convinced that we will be able to carry out our ambitious plans to modernize the economy and the social sphere only if we operate with broad public support and work for the people and in their interests. Rather than promising changes for the distant future, we must work step by step to improve living standards today”. In the SPIEF speech of President Medvedev we found about his vision of what Russia will look like in a few years’ time, and what needs to do to achieve this.

“I will talk about the project for developing Russia, a project that will come to fruition only if the whole of Russian society joins forces in its implementation. Projects only achieve results when society as a whole feels a need for and is involved in their implementation. This project will go ahead no matter who holds office in this country over the coming years” said Mr Medvedev.

The same view, different words. And a common denominator of both: the social cohesion. And the social contagion. These mean Vladislav Surkov’s cherished concepts when he must to reconcile the stability of the vertical power with the dynamic upgrade necessary changes to modernization.

More. President Medvedev said that: “Modernisation is the only way to address the many issues before us, and this is why we have set the course of modernising our national economy, outlined our technology development priorities for the coming years, and set the goal of turning Moscow into one of the world’s major financial centres. Of course this is not an easy process, and we knew from the start that we would encounter difficulties on the way, but we could not simply wait for the right time to come along, and decided to seize the initiative and take action. In any case, our modernisation policy is already starting to bear fruit”.

In turn, Prime Minister Putin noticed: “Using the structure of United Russia, we would like to bring new people out of the woodwork who have fresh ideas that are relevant to today’s Russia and our near future. Institutional issues are also being resolved – we have already selected a premise, and people have started working. So, I’m satisfied on the whole. Let me repeat once again: the most important thing is to seek out new people with fresh and interesting ideas that the country needs. On the whole, the process is going as we expected” and “This proposal is linked with United Russia because it is the leading political force in the country, and it has the capability to follow through on these ideas and to place people in the previously mentioned positions of power through its instruments and channels”.

The vision is the same. What is the difference ? One. While President Medvedev speaks the language of technocrats who advise him but nothing about political support, PM Putin also reminds us that he has political levers necessary to implement the program. Medvedev isn’t the lame duck, but also he isn’t Sorcerer’s Apprentice which to be exceeded his Master. And he knows that it is impossible to manage the country from one point as it is impossible to manage a country without political support. Especially, if we are talking about a huge country as Russia. Such comparisons analysis of text could run tens of pages.

The conclusions are but a few: any split between Russia’s two-man leadership is not possible, nor is it desirable and even is unconstructive. I don’t believe in the viability of confrontation for the sake of media ratings. The President Medvedev’s attitude seems to be rather the discontent and frustration of sorcerer’s apprentice because of its limited powers.

And those who dream at a Medvedev hero and think that Putin’s Era is over must wait. Yes, Mr. Medvedev has a young team, flexible and able to adapt, to seek pragmatic solutions and to react more quickly and effectively. Press recently wrote about the refusal of the political enrolling of presidential advisor on economic issues Arcady Dvorcovich. I think that isn’ a bad thing. On the contrary, the experience has shown that is at least inefficient to ask a technocrat to become political propagandist.

Instead, Prime Minister Putin has the infrastructure and support of the United Russia party. Maybe is a machinery little rigid, bureaucratic, with slow reactions and difficult to reform, but very necessary and useful in the electoral battle. A wise decision of President Medvedev would be that himself try to be the bridge for collaboration between his team and the necessary political support, whether PM Putin will give him a second chance or will decide to run for presidential office himself. In fact we could see an episode like that in 2008, and Medvedev could take up the post of prime minister.

The chances that the international community (already overwhelmed by a multitude of more serious problems) longer consider this an attack to democracy are minimal. There will be five years in which a significant part of the Skolkovo project will be materialized; also the measures and programs required to the Putin’s government, and that seem to run with snail speed, would get dynamics and coherences, and the Medvedev’s team results will be seen internally and externally. Only then can we see the Sorcerer’s Apprentice in a different light. Reality has shown that it can transcend the legend. Sometimes.

Published – Eurasia Review, 20 June 2011

• Update: 20 June 2011 

The Russia President Dmitry Medvedev‘s interview given to the Financial Times newspaper is evidence that my perception was correct. Medvedev dismissed talk of a deepening rift with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in remarks published on Monday, strongly hinting they would not run against each other for president next year.