Julian Assange, the founder of whistleblowing website WikiLeaks, is to host a talk show on Russia Today, a Russian state-run English language network known for its closeness to the Kremlin.
Archive for the ‘Business’ Category
Russian Election Protests
Tens of thousands of people have demonstrated to express their anger at alleged rigging in Russia’s parliamentary elections, as a human rights group set up by the Russian president has recommended that a snap election be held. Opposition activists staged their second set of nationwide rallies on Saturday to protest against what they say were rigged elections on December 4.
Is this the start of the downfall of the Putin regime?
Russian Wives Give Husbands A Prison Break!
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/a17b63b0-2602-11e1-856e-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1gnz9y9eY
Every Wednesday evening, an artsy Moscow café bursts with middle-aged women who look like accountants or mid-level managers. At least that is what they would do if they were not spending all their time working to get their husbands out of prison.
Wednesday is the night that Rus Sidyashchaya (Russia Behind Bars) meets. The organisation was founded by Olga Romanova, a journalist-turned-prisoners’ rights activist. “I’ve told the men,” another of the group’s leaders says to me, “If you don’t make a monument to Romanova out of solid gold, then you are worthless.”
Romanova’s husband, Alexei Kozlov, was jailed in 2008 and sentenced the following year to eight years in prison for fraud. Romanova tried everything to get him out. The usual route, bribery, did not work, so she launched her own investigation, turning up evidence that her husband’s conviction was based on forged documents. She got the case to the Russian supreme court, which overturned Kozlov’s sentence twice (the first time did not work), and, a few months ago, she travelled to a distant prison colony to pick up her husband. The video of their reunion went viral in Russia.
Romanova, 45, heavy-set and with dyed-red hair, walks over to a bespectacled woman. “What are you here for?” she asks. The woman’s answer is inaudible. “159! Fraud!” Romanova booms. “We are all here because of Article 159. Come join in!”
Human rights activists estimate that 15 per cent of Russian inmates are entrepreneurs jailed as a result of business disputes. Article 159 is the most common vehicle, and most cases are initiated by a partner seeking to take over another’s shares in a business. Then it is a matter of forging documents and bribing and pressuring judges. In the bespectacled woman’s case, though, it’s a Moscow apartment that was at stake: Yelena says her husband was recently sentenced to four years in prison on charges stemming from the purchase of the couple’s property. “The investigator told me he’d drop the charges if we just signed the apartment over,” she says.
A group forms in the centre of the room. Their relatives are in jail under Article 228: drugs. At first glance this seems a different story, but the narrative is chillingly similar: forged documents, disregard for judicial procedure. A woman tells of her son, sentenced to six years for possession of 13g of hashish with intent to distribute. She says she has found dozens of other families whose trials mirrored her son’s: the same buyer, the same two witnesses and identical wording in the verdict. The people gathered around her nod vigorously. The alleged crimes may be different, but a single truth unites these people: once your loved one is snatched by the Russian criminal-justice system, you have little hope.
A striking blonde in her mid-thirties is lecturing a slight, pale woman. “Don’t tell him he’ll get out soon,” she says. “Don’t tell him it will be all right, because it probably won’t be.” The younger woman nods, tears in her eyes.
Her 22-year-old boyfriend, a Russian-nationalist activist, is facing two years’ imprisonment for throwing water in a prosecutor’s face following the trial of two of his friends.“I feel guilty,” Ira, the younger woman, says, “because some days I don’t think about him at all.”
“Ha!” the blonde woman will have none of this. “I used to feel guilty. For a year and a half, I couldn’t eat, because what did he have to eat in prison? I got anorexic. What use am I to my three kids, or to him, if I’m starving myself to death? Be human. In the end, either you’ll wait for him, or you won’t.”
The blonde’s name is Yulia Roshchina, and her husband’s story is the classic business-partner-against-business-partner. The 36-year-old importer was arrested three years ago and sentenced to 18 years in maximum security prison for contraband and money laundering. An appeal court later knocked 10 years off his sentence, ruling the money-laundering charges unfounded. On December 7, the same day as this meeting, President Dmitry Medvedev signed penal-code reform into law that decriminalised what used to be called contraband. “I was driving and I heard on the radio that he signed this, and I cried,” Roshchina tells me.
“And I thought, ‘Why am I crying? It’s just a piece of paper.’” There is no guarantee that her husband will now be released.
“There are so many of us,” Roshchina continues. “A million people behind bars in Russia, and at least 700,000 of them are innocent – I’m judging by all the people my husband has shared cells with. That’s a revolution!”
A revolution is brewing just outside the door as we talk. Over the first two days of protests more than 500 people have been jailed – with all sorts of procedural and legal violations. Any way you look at it, the new Russian revolution will turn on those who are behind bars.
Vasily Grossman
It would diminish Vasily Grossman’s gifts if we were to present him – as the BBC has tried to do in the publicity for the new radio dramatization of Life and Fate – as a stereotypically lonely victim of a brutal regime, a dissident author ruthlessly persecuted by the guardians of a totalitarian ideology. In fact, Grossman spent most of his active life rubbing shoulders with prominent figures of the Soviet literary establishment. During the Second World War, as a newspaper correspondent with the rank of Red Army officer, he was a star of Soviet journalism, describing in vivid detail the silent heroism of people behind the front line, the ordeal of defending Stalingrad, the Nazi atrocities in the occupied territories, the horrors of Treblinka and the fall of Berlin. He was the author of many officially approved publications that earned him important state prizes and decorations. He must have known what he was doing when in 1961 he submitted the manuscript of Life and Fate – the book that directly equates Stalinism with Nazism – to Znamya, a Moscow literary magazine. Indeed, the manuscript was immediately handed over to the Soviet security services, Grossman’s apartment was raided and his manuscripts and even his typewriter ribbons were seized.
He must have known what he was doing when in 1961 he submitted the manuscript of Life and Fate – the book that directly equates Stalinism with Nazism – to Znamya, a Moscow literary magazine.
But such treatment of a dissident writer by the KGB was not exceptional, as Grossman well knew. The Moscow of the early 1960s was no longer a Stalinist prison; Khrushchev’s condemnation of Stalinism at the 1956 Party Congress changed the ideological climate in the country forever. And yet, when Doctor Zhivago was published in Italy in 1957, Boris Pasternak was vehemently denounced throughout the Soviet press as a traitor – a campaign that drove the poet to despair and an early death. On the other hand, the late 1950s witnessed unofficial gatherings of poets and uncensored public readings in Mayakovsky Square in the heart of Moscow. For the first time in Soviet history, ordinary people could buy a personal typewriter or tape recorder and make samizdat copies of prose, poetry and songs to circulate among their friends. Semi-official concerts and heated political discussions took place in cafés and university lecture halls. This literary activity was closely monitored by the authorities and sometimes severely punished. It was a turbulent and controversial period in Soviet history, which helps to explain why Grossman was so persistent in his attempts to have Life and Fate published. He, no doubt, believed that this book could be regarded as anti-Stalinist but not anti-Soviet. How can one otherwise explain the fact that he wrote a letter to Khrushchev, appealing to the Soviet leader to reconsider the decision by Party ideologues to suppress the book?
One can also detect a note of historical optimism in Grossman’s Soviet epic, similar to that in Solzhenitsyn’s works (and partly shared by Pasternak in his Doctor Zhivago): that is, the belief that the horrors of Stalinism were necessary for the purification of Russia’s national spirit. This belief was the major point of disagreement between Solzhenitsyn and Varlam Shalamov, who (like Primo Levi in the context of Nazism), had rejected outright any spiritual benefits of that suffering, any positive lessons to be drawn from having experienced Stalinist labour camps: for Shalamov, as for Levi, these camps were an irredeemable hell – the only duty of the writer is to depict this hell vividly enough to be recognized by future generations. Grossman eventually arrived at the same conclusion in his last, unpublished novel Vsyo techyot (Everything Flows in Robert Chandler’s translation of 2010, reviewed in the TLS March 5, 2011), but when Life and Fate emerged in samizdat in the 1970s (a copy of the manuscript had been saved and preserved by Grossman’s friends, to be eventually published abroad in 1980) the new Russian intellectual elite, already familiar with Orwell and Koestler, Hannah Arendt and Albert Camus, treated the Grossman of Life and Fate with scepticism, because in their eyes he was too close to the system he was trying to debunk.
Chandler underlines one aspect of the novel which, to my mind, is essential for understanding this historical masterpiece: its autobiographical nature
Reconstructing the history and fate of Grossman’s book in the preface to his translation of 1985, on which the BBC dramatization is based, Chandler underlines one aspect of the novel which, to my mind, is essential for understanding this historical masterpiece: its autobiographical nature. The conscience of the central character, the nuclear physicist Viktor Shtrum, is loaded with the same burden of guilt as Grossman’s was. Grossman’s mother (like Shtrum’s in the book) was left behind the front line in Ukraine and murdered by the Nazis because, initially, Grossman’s second wife had been against living with her under the same roof. It was Grossman, like his hero, who started a love affair with his best friend’s wife. It was Grossman who put his signature under the Partyinspired proclamation demanding harsh treatment for the Jewish doctors accused of heinous crimes against the Soviet state. It was Grossman who was knowingly silent about Soviet atrocities in the occupied territories, just as he was silent during the assaults of the Soviet propaganda machine on his fellow writers, such as Mikhail Zoshchenko and Anna Akhmatova.
Life and Fate is an encyclopedia of moral choices in the haunting circumstances that Grossman had witnessed, heard evidence of or might have experienced himself – in the battle for Stalingrad, in the Jewish queues to the gas chambers, in Lubyanka prison cells or German concentration camps. It is an exposé of the whole of Soviet society, including the liberal intelligentsia, in its complicity in the process of isolating and persecuting the individual, the outsider, the one who refuses to succumb to the collective urge to pursue honourable aspirations by means of disgraceful acts. Grossman, in his authorial commentaries between the episodes in the narrative, does not discuss totalitarian ideas as such, but rather their consequences when those ideas become a collective obsession. This is a dispatch from the front line of moral compromises, and the voice of the correspondent, with all his comments and clarifications, is of the utmost importance. It is, in fact, a conversation that Grossman conducts with himself, confessional in its character, an act of repentance, which he, in ventriloquist fashion, presents through a multitude of voices, embodied by his characters. Life and Fate is written, in a way, as if it were scripted for radio – a captivating narrator talking to his listeners. This narrator’s voice makes us trust the author when he shares with us his thoughts on what might have been happening in Hitler’s or Stalin’s head when they were committing crimes against humanity, or when Grossman lets us know the secret feelings of the victims of the Holocaust in their last moments.
Conventional radio theatre which simulates the exotic reality of Soviet Russia
With the impeccable traditional craftsmanship of BBC radio drama, combined with editorial boldness, two script writers, Jonathan Myerson and Mike Walker, and their producer, Alison Hindell, have cut through the complicated plot of Grossman’s family saga about the three sisters Shaposhnikov and their families and lovers during the Second World War. Struggling with the epic scale of the work, with its hundreds of characters and their innumerable links with each other (the BBC have even provided a simplified family tree on their website, and every episode can now be downloaded), they have concentrated on the career of Viktor Shtrum (played by Kenneth Branagh); on the death of his Jewish mother at the hands of the Nazis; on the controversial – from the Soviet point of view – fate of a few Red Army officers during the defence of Stalingrad; and on the moral dilemmas of the political commissar Krymov, initially a Stalinist who undergoes a spiritual transformation when he himself is denounced and arrested. But the authorial voice I was talking about has been removed from this radio adaptation. The voice is broken up and distributed between different characters. The result is an elaborate and convincing piece of conventional radio theatre which simulates the exotic reality of Soviet Russia. Only the soliloquies in this star-studded production (such as the last letter from Shtrum’s mother, read by Janet Suzman) convey the confessional horror lurking behind Grossman’s family story. Without this unifying narrative voice, Grossman’s epic fable of the mendacious triumph of collective fate over individual life can sometimes sound like an anti-Stalinist version of The Archers.
Zinovy Zinik’s autobiographical tale, History Thieves, appeared earlier this year.
Russia sparks outrage over Syria veto at UN
Russia defended its decision to veto a UN resolution on Syria, insisting that its suggested amendments had been ignored, as it faced a torrent of outrage from the US, Europe and the Syrian opposition.
The US described the Russian and Chinese veto during Tuesday’s UN vote as a slap in the face of the Syrian people and France’s Alain Juppé, the foreign minister, lamented the move as a “sad day” for Syrians and for the UN Security Council.
Burhan Ghalioun, a leading member of the newly formed Syrian National Council, an opposition front, echoed the fears of many activists in the more than six-month uprising when he said the Russian and Chinese veto would encourage the militarisation of the revolution.
“Supporting Bashar al-Assad in his militarist and fascist project will not encourage the Syrian people to stick to a peaceful revolution,” he told Agence France Presse.
“This Russian policy that blocks any attempt to condemn violence flies in the face of everything they have said.”
But Russian officials, who have taken the lead in rejecting international pressure on Mr Assad, bringing the Chinese along with them, said they were worried that sanctions would be the first step in a slippery slope towards military intervention, as was the case in Libya.
“We have warned more than once that we will strictly oppose any attempt to turn the ‘Libyan scenario’ into some sort of norm,” said Russia’s foreign ministry in a statement on Wednesday, explaining the decision to veto.
It said that Russia had sought to incorporate language calling for the Syrian opposition to disassociate themselves from extremists and for the resolution to explicitly state that military intervention was inadmissible. The involvement of “extremists” in the revolt is a main allegation made by Damascus.
“We are not lawyers for regime of Bashar al-Assad,” said the foreign ministry, adding that Russia “definitely considers the continuing violence unacceptable and condemns the suppression of peaceful demonstrations”.
“At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that the radical opposition are increasingly profiting from the mood of protest among the population of Syria and no longer hide their extremist ideas, resorting to the tactics of outright terror.”
France, together with the UK, Germany and Portugal, and with US backing, diluted a previous draft resolution that had been stagnating for months in the hope of convincing Russia and China to at least abstain.
The latest version decried the “grave and systematic” human rights violations in Syria and demanded an immediate end to the violence and for those responsible to be held to account. It did not include the explicit threat of sanctions but said the Security Council would “consider its options”, which could include unspecified “measures” after 30 days.
The resolution would have been the first Security Council action against the Assad regime since the pro-democracy protests erupted in mid-March, leaving at least 2,700 people dead so far, according to the UN.
Russia has close economic and military ties with Syria, which has been an ally since the Soviet era. It maintains a seaport for naval vessels in Syria’s Mediterranean port of Tartus, its only military facility outside the former Soviet republics.
Russia also has weapons contracts with Syria worth at least $3bn, according to the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.
However, Russian policymakers say their opposition to censuring Syria at the UN is not rooted in parochial interests but in a broader unease that the Arab spring revolutions could bring radical Islamist forces to power.
“If you look back in recent history, you will see that the Arab world is losing secular regimes,” said Mikhail Margelov, Russia’s presidential envoy to Africa, in remarks last month to journalists during a conference in the city of Yaroslavl.
The Kremlin also sees a real danger that civil war in Syria could lead to collapse of the country, plunging the region into chaos, according to one former top policymaker who asked to remain anonymous.
Mr Margelov said that Mr Assad remained the best hope for reform in Syria. “[Assad] is a secular leader, he is well educated, he is broad minded and we think that he has a chance for modernising his country,” he said.
Syria’s opposition, however, says Russian efforts at mediating a dialogue will go nowhere, not only because the protest movement is demanding the fall of the regime but also because Mr Assad himself has not been receptive to any offer of talks.
Critics of the regime now fear that Mr Assad will be emboldened by the Russian and Chinese veto and pursue an even more ferocious campaign against the opposition.
For Russia’s Liberals, Flickers of Hope Vanish
MOSCOW — When Lyubov Volkova, 63, woke up on Sunday, it was a few moments before she remembered what had happened.
Related
On Sunday she awoke to the reality that Vladimir V. Putin had, in effect, appointed himself president, and she knew that the aspirations of the Mikhail S. Gorbachev era had been snuffed out.
She compared it to a science fiction story by Ray Bradbury in which the death of a butterfly sets off a cascade of events that change history. At some point in their 20-year path, she said, Russians lost interest in democratic reform.
“Sometime — maybe not 20 years ago, but maybe 17 years ago — the butterfly was crushed, and the consciousness of the Russian citizens traveled along a different path,” Ms. Volkova said. “Something happened, maybe in 1994, or maybe in 1996. Different people began to grow up here. They will accept anything.”
Russia’s liberals, a small but influential slice of the population, have faced lacerating truths this month.
Mr. Putin, who dominates politics here, is popular with members of the overall public in Russia, who have seen steady gains in their living standards over the last decade. And though he is an unapologetic advocate of centralized power, his government has offered political vehicles for the educated elites who disagree. Chief among these vehicles was Mr. Medvedev, Mr. Putin’s successor as president, who as a candidate promised to fight “legal nihilism” and “limitless corruption.” Another was Right Cause, a hastily created opposition party whose leader vowed to introduce genuine competition to Parliament.
Now those vehicles appear hollow. On Saturday, Mr. Putin announced that he and Mr. Medvedev had agreed “several years ago” that the younger man would cede the presidency to him in 2012, suggesting that Mr. Medvedev had served as merely a convenient placeholder all along. Two weeks ago, the leader of Right Cause quit in a scandal, complaining of oppressive Kremlin control. The political fog has cleared to reveal certainties: Mr. Putin never had any intention of leaving power, and he has maneuvered so that he can remain until 2024.
Liberal-minded Muscovites poured out their despair on the Internet on Sunday, passing around a portrait of Mr. Putin superimposed on Leonid Brezhnev, whose 18-year rule became known as the “era of stagnation.” The political scientist Sergei M. Markedonov said the news put him in mind of Charles Talleyrand’s description of Napoleon’s army as it crossed into Russia, toward a catastrophic defeat.
“ ‘The beginning of the end’ — you cannot think of a better diagnosis,” he wrote in a posting on his Facebook page. “Putin as president — that is the beginning of the end. I don’t give a damn who of them is on top, and who is on the bottom. But the institutionalization of Putin as president — that is total stagnation. It is the victory of a corrupt oligarchy. It is the failure of modernization.”
Others turned their anger on Mr. Medvedev, who, during his three and a half years in office, has put forward an ambitious modernization agenda and critiqued some of his predecessor’s policies.
“Doesn’t he wish to explain to his fellow citizens, those who trusted him to be the guarantor of their rights and freedoms, to be their commander in chief, why he suddenly decided to voluntarily leave his post?” wrote Vladimir Varfolomeyev, a journalist for the radio station Ekho Moskvy, on his blog.
“At the convention he only spoke in generalities about his readiness to engage in ‘the practical work of the government’ and about a ‘party’ career,” Mr. Varfolomeyev wrote. “This will not be enough. At this point it looks like an extremely disrespectful attitude to the citizens of Russia.”
As for Ms. Volkova, she listened to the broadcast of Saturday’s party convention alone in her apartment, which she said was too modest to show to a reporter.
Russian top job swap sparks Kremlin revolt
Senior Russian government figures have rebelled against a deal between President Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, the prime minister, to switch jobs next year.
The rebellion indicates that the handover arrangement will not be as smooth as the two leaders had anticipated.
After Saturday’s announcement that Mr Medvedev would take over as prime minister, while backing Mr Putin to return to the presidency in March 2012 elections, Alexei Kudrin, finance minister, announced during a meeting in Washington that he would “definitely refuse” to work with Mr Medvedev in the cabinet.
“I don’t see myself in the new government. Nobody has offered me a position, but I think that the disagreements I have will not allow me to be a part of the new government,” he told journalists on the sidelines of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings.
Putin move risks public backlash
Rather than heralding a westward, liberalising trend in Russia’s post-communist history, Dmitry Medvedev’s presidency looks to be little more than a footnote in the decades-long “Putin era”.
Vladimir Putin, who served as president from 2000 to 2008, could now rule for two more six-year presidential terms, giving him a quarter-century reign in power, as long as Josef Stalin or Leonid Brezhnev.
Is this really a good idea, considering the doubt that Western governments have about whether a Rule of Law and Democracy even exist in Russia?
Russia: How to look good on Google
Chelyabinsk is hardly a hot spot of Russian tourism. In fact, the town in the southern Ural mountains has long been labelled as the most polluted spot on earth.
Now city authorities have decided it’s time to tackle the problem head-on – not the pollution problem, mind you, just the labelling one. In a public tender document published on the Chelyabinsk region website, bidders are being sought for a $10,000 contract to provide search engine optimisation.
Nuclear Weapons programmes
Dmitry Medvedev, Russian president, will meet his North Korean counterpart on Wednesday to discuss plans to build gas pipelines and rail links via North Korea to South Korea, a major trade partner for Russia.
Mr Medvedev and Kim Jong-il will meet in the eastern Siberian city of Ulan Ude for negotiations that are also aimed at breaking the impasse over the country’s nuclear weapons programme.







