Strong demand as fear rules the ball. The vertical becomes more vertical. Kickback is a must.
December 21, 2021
Strong demand
Last Friday, the Russian Foreign Ministry published draft treaties with the United States and NATO, which, according to the Kremlin, should provide the desired security guarantees to Russia. In these documents, among other items, Kremlin proposes to NATO member countries to return to the situation regarding the deployment of forces and armament as of May 27, 1997, the time when the fundamental act on Russia’s relations with NATO was signed. In addition, Russia demands to exclude the possibility of further NATO expansion to the East.
Commenting on the text of these documents, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said:
“I had to take maps to mark with flags and circles all those objects that have appeared close to our borders in all recent years, and with arrows to draw where who flies, on what planes, and what ships pass...
“We demand unequivocally the withdrawal of the well-known 2008 NATO summit decision in Bucharest that Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO.
“Yesterday’s statement from the NATO Council [which] says that what Russia is demanding... all of this has nothing to do with NATO activities. NATO itself will decide who to accept, who not to accept. And Ukraine’s relationship with NATO concerns only this country and 30 member states of the Alliance.
“No, they are much more about Russia. I can say this straightforwardly. The time of diplomatic phraseology is over. We have to explain to people what’s on their fingers. Here we are primarily concerned, the Russian Federation, with the question of what will happen to the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO.”
The Kremlin, on the one hand, in the mouth of Ryabkov, says: “Both texts are not menu-driven, where you can choose one or the other, they are mutually complementary and should be considered in combination.”
On the other hand, the same Ryabkov says that this document consciously does not reflect the interests of NATO member states. “Are you suggesting that we for NATO should write them their security guarantees? I’m not sure they need them at all.”
Apart from the fact that the Kremlin in this case casts aside diplomatic practice—which is not much of a surprise, given that the Russian Foreign Ministry has long since moved to the unacceptable in international practice language—what draws my attention is the (un)ostensible impatience, the desire for an immediate response.
At 1:42 p.m. Moscow time (5:42 a.m. Washington time) on Monday, a phrase coined by Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, appeared on Interfax. “Moscow has not yet received a substantive response to proposals to the United States and NATO on security guarantees in Europe.” A little later, Sergey Ryabkov said he hoped that Washington had “internalized the need for an ‘urgent’ response to the proposals on security guarantees,” adding that “there is no understanding yet of what form the response might take.”
I, in this regard, have two comments.
1) A Russian proverb says: Haste is necessary when catching fleas.
2) I will repeat my assertion that Putin has fallen into a state of panic fear and is forcing his diplomats to do inadequate things.
Fear rules the ball
“Many of them [in the West] really dislike Putin, and they want Russia to have another president, to have a president who will not talk about red lines, ... who will turn a blind eye to the work of media paid from abroad, ... who will allow gay parades, who will squander Russian territory, ... who would turn a blind eye to the nuclear missiles that stand in Dnepropetrovsk,” said Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov.
The Scientific Council of the Russian Security Council discussed possible challenges and threats posed to the country by geopolitical changes.
“Possible challenges and threats to Russia’s security due to geopolitical changes in the world were discussed. The topic of the impact of changes in the global energy balance on energy security in the country and the world was also considered... Recommendations were elaborated on countering the implementation of ‘color revolutions’ technologies in our country,” the Security Council press service said in a report.
Fear of the “color revolution” threat has been well ingrained in Vladimir Putin’s mind since the 2003-2005 events in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. Although more than 15 years have passed since then, he still remembers them and, from time to time, finds it necessary to make a harsh statement about the inadmissibility of such events in Russia. Putin does not believe that these moments in the life of neighboring countries were the result of internal political processes. Still, he is sure that they were the result of the influence of external forces, of the malignant West.
I am not much surprised that the head of the Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, finds it necessary to discuss this problem—generals are constantly preparing for a past war. But it should be emphasized that discussing it and publicly announcing it at a time of rising general tensions between Russia and the West is a reflection of what Nikolai Patrushev, who is ex officio responsible for Russian security, is concerned about today. There should be no illusions that Vladimir Putin is also concerned about this.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Rudenko said the Kremlin’s initiatives on security guarantees are due to the actions of Ukraine and several other countries, which have reached a boiling point recently, forcing Moscow to take radical steps.
“The issue here is absolutely not about fears [of the Kremlin], the issue is about our neighbors—not only Ukraine but neighbors in principle—reaching a certain boiling point that forces us to take certain radical steps, at least we say that we are ready to think on a different plane.
“We have other [besides Ukraine] countries bordering the Russian Federation where the flight time for strike systems is 4-5 minutes. In Ukraine, there are no such flight distances yet. Our reaction is simply a preventive measure that warns that if certain scenarios develop on our part, certain steps will be taken, which we are not spreading about now and are only talking in general terms, calling these things military steps and military-technical solutions.”
Say “No” to torture?
The public discussion that has erupted in Russia in recent weeks following the publication of a video archive from the Saratov prison hospital with numerous instances of torture of prisoners seems to have made the situation unacceptable even to the Kremlin, which for years has refused to acknowledge the problem.
On Monday, Andrei Klishas and Pavel Krasheninnikov, the chairmen of the legislative committees of Russia’s two parliament chambers, submitted a bill that would tighten the Criminal Code’s liability for torture.
In particular, the bill increases penalties for torture, organized and/or carried out by government officials to coerce testimony or intimidate. A new subject of the crime—a law enforcement officer—is introduced in the article of the Criminal Code, which provides punishment for coercion to testimony. “This will make it possible to prosecute for torture, including employees of the Russian Federal Penitentiary Service, and not only investigators or persons conducting inquiries, as provided in the current version of the Criminal Code... Now such crimes are punishable by up to 12 years in prison,” said Krasheninnikov.
Given the proximity of the bill’s authors to the Kremlin, I am confident it will be adopted and come into force. But this is not a guarantee that torture will stop in Russia. Today, the Russian judiciary is not independent, and I don’t believe that judges will make independent and fair decisions in the few cases that come before them. Let’s not forget that before that, all the materials of the claim must be prepared by the investigator, who will have to indict his partner or supervisor. No one has ever canceled a mutual guarantee in Russia.
The fight against price hikes continues
Russian authorities have decided to extend the practice of the floating export duty in case of a sharp rise in world prices.
Today the export duty is limited to 70% of the difference between the indicative and contract prices if the wheat price exceeds $200/ton and the price of corn and barley exceeds $185. The Ministry of Economic Development proposed introducing additional rates of 80% and 90% if the price of wheat exceeds $375 and $400, respectively (for barley and corn—$350 and $375 per ton, respectively).
The intention of the Russian authorities is quite transparent: To prevent the growth of prices in the domestic market in case exports become more attractive due to a rise in world prices.
The Kremlin denies. Memorial claims
“There is no one in the Russian Federation who is persecuted on the basis of political beliefs. There is legislation, and people are prosecuted for suspicion of committing certain crimes under current law. But there is no political persecution in Russia,” said presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov.
In late October, the human rights center Memorial published a list of 420 Russian political prisoners. Of these, 340 were detained in connection with their exercise of the right to freedom of conscience or religious affiliation, and 80 for other political reasons. A year earlier, a similar list contained the names of 362 people. The list has been growing for years.
Kickback is a must!
Experts from the University-Higher School of Economics (Moscow) surveyed 1,200 companies from various country regions. 71% of the respondents pointed to the existence of informal payments by the customer; 28% found it difficult to answer or refused to answer. The size of a bribe ranges from 3% to 65% of the contract value. Most frequently cited were 3%, 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%; 14% of respondents indicated a zero amount. The average kickbacks in corrupt schemes in public procurement is 22.5% of the contract amount.
Thirty-seven percent of respondents say that the bidder’s agreement to kickback is a mandatory condition for victory.
Militaries noted Russia lagging behind
On December 18, Russia officially terminated its participation in the Open Skies Treaty (OST). After several years of attempts and discussions, Moscow and Washington failed to compromise on the continuation of cross-observation flights over military facilities of the two countries.
The TASS news agency released anonymous comments from Russian military officials who worked under the treaty.
“The possibilities of the treaty are by no means exhausted. On the contrary, there should have been new equipment with new capabilities. Even with the satellite reconnaissance component, only aircraft could provide high-quality tactical reconnaissance... With a real lag in the development of the space surveillance and reconnaissance component, it was extremely important for Russia to be able to conduct high-quality imagery of all major military and strategic facilities of NATO countries annually, and sometimes a couple of times a year,” one of them noted.
“The Russian Armed Forces are losing valuable specialists with their withdrawal from the treaty... And, as far as I know, 90% of these people are going to leave the ranks of the Russian Armed Forces,” said another.
Unclear position
The Bank of Russia intends to approve the circulation rules of cryptocurrencies in the country legally. According to the regulator, Russian citizens and businesses have the right to acquire and store cryptocurrency, but not through domestic infrastructure or intermediaries.
“I think we will address the issue through changes in legislation. There will be a more precise definition of how cryptocurrencies can circulate," said Deputy Chairman of the Central Bank Vladimir Chistyukhin, responding to the question whether the Bank of Russia advocates a ban on transfers of funds from citizens’ accounts in Russian banks to cryptocurrency exchanges.
To me, this position looks a little strange. On the one hand, the Bank of Russia promotes the concept of a digital ruble, which provides for total control by the state over all monetary transactions of citizens and companies. On the other hand, it pushes the most advanced part of Russians from the Russian financial system, taking their transactions outside the contour of the control that the Kremlin is building.