Saturday, March 30, 2019

Issue 29

THE BRETON/GEROL NEWSLETTER


THE MOUNTAIN GAVE BIRTH TO A MOUSE



The two-year long investigation and the conclusions of the Mueller inquiry are reminiscent of two and a half lines of a four-line Latin poem by Phaedrus. “A mountain had gone into labour and was groaning terribly. Such rumors excited great expectations all over the country. In the end, however, the mountain gave birth to a mouse.”



Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller III

Democrats spent two and a half years pinning all their hopes and tying virtually all internal and external policies of the United States on the assumption that Donald Trump had colluded with (or even was an asset or agent of) the Russian Federation. The press sympathetic to this simplistic and ultimately wrong (as we know now empirically) conclusion was spearheading this quest. This reverberated way beyond the borders of the United States and negatively influenced not only East-West relations, but also relations with allies. Democrats, through Mueller, failed not only to prove that Trump colluded with Russia, but by doing so have further undermined efforts of legitimate criticism of all the weak points of Trump and his administration and have increased Donald Trump's chances in 2020.

The Democratic Majority in Congress will nevertheless want to pursue the issue of obstruction of justice, over which Mueller did not reach a formal conclusion.

On the positive side of being cleared on the Russia front Trump can resurrect attempts to improve relations with Russia especially in light of the fact that relations between the two nuclear giants are at historic lows. Moreover some key issues of the world politics like Ukraine, Syria and nuclear disarmament simply cannot be solved without equal participation and engagement of Russia and the United States. 

Attorney General William Barr

As for Russia itself, Attorney General Barr’s summary letter of the Mueller report does not offer any new information on the two main allegations. There has been some of debate about the extent, effectiveness and impact of the trolling activity that was conducted by the St. Petersburg Internet Research Agency. Mueller has indicted a number of Russian citizens in this connection, but their cases will most likely never make it to a US Court. As for the hacking of the computers of the Democratic National Committee and the results of that hacking being made public, it should be noted that Trump associate Roger Stone still has to undergo trial for his role in that process. This, however important it may be, may not have a lot of impact on Trump himself. 

--o--

AND THEN THERE WERE 39

Preparing ballot papers
©Central Electoral Commission of Ukraine

44 candidates initially registered for the March 31st Ukrainian Presidential Election. 5 have officially withdrawn. This will still leave Ukrainian voters with a rather unwieldy ballot paper. Experience shows that this can complicate voting and tallying, but it is not the biggest problem.

Candidate Zelensky
Candidate Tymoshenko
Candidate Poroshenko





One reliable recent public opinion poll indicates that, despite his lack of government experience, comedian-turned-presidential candidate Vladimir Zelensky currently enjoys the support of up to 32.7% of the voters that have made up their minds and that are planning to participate in the March 31st first round of the presidential election. This is almost twice as much as current President Poroshenko who receives 16.8% and former PM Tymoshenko who only gets 12.3%. Previous opinion polls had suggested a similar, but less pronounced tendency in favour of Zelensky. Further analysis of opinion polls seems to suggest that Zelensky would soundly defeat either Poroshenko or Tymoshenko in the second round. Interestingly, Poroshenko is the candidate with the strongest negative rating: in a poll that was asking voters who have decided to participate in the election for which candidate they would not vote “under any circumstances” Poroshenko ranked first at 49.3% .By comparison, only 28.5% expressed such an opinion with respect to Tymoshenko.

In a country that has such a low opinion of its traditional political class, Zelensky is an attractive candidate as the non-corrupt outsider and as one who is not a professional politician. Although his political program may not be completely fleshed out, he has been given him credit for the fact that he has managed to position himself above division lines, thus making himself acceptable to some nationalists as well as to some who may want better relations with Russia. It is worth noting that the recent visit to Moscow by pro-Russia presidential candidate Boyko and his meeting with PM Medvedev and Gazprom Chairman Miller were seen as attempt to take pro-Russia votes away from Zelensky. Boyko’s controversial Moscow journey was intended to demonstrate that a true friend of Russia would be able to strike a deal on the supply and transit of Russian gas that would result in a lower price of gas for Ukrainian households, a matter which is not insignificant in light of recent and upcoming price increases.

As for Poroshenko, observers generally agree that his return to second position in public opinion polls is a result of his capture of the more nationalist vote through, among other things, his efforts to promote the creation of an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church recognized as such by the Patriarch of Constantinople. The lackluster performance of other nationalist candidates Tymoshenko and Former Defence Minister Grytsenko probably helped as well. In light of the negative perception of his overall record on the matter, as well as of recent scandals involving some of his associates, Poroshenko’s weakest point would probably be the fight against corruption. To counter that perception or, more simply, to muddy the waters, Yuri Lutsenko , Procurator General of Ukraine suggested in a recent interview that he had received a few years ago a list of “untouchables” from the US Ambassador Marie Jovanovich. According to Lutsenko, these untouchables were to be exempted from any prosecution. The Lutsenko allegations were quickly rebuffed by US officials and seemed to have only been intended to create confusion around the fight against corruption, even at the cost of alienating a strong supporter.

Although the level of participation among Zelensky supporters might be a problem his lead in the polls a few days before the election would seem sufficient to take him as the first candidate to the second round. Indications are that he would then face Poroshenko. There would then be likely protests from the Tymoshenko camp that Poroshenko stole his participation by the use of “administrative resources”, the code word for the influence that incumbents and their supporters across all levels of government can use to affect the outcome of elections. Alarmingly, a recent opinion poll suggests that 83% of Ukrainians indeed expect there will be “falsification” of the results, regardless of the large number of international observers. The Central Election Commission having acquiesced to the presence of over 300 members of Ukraine’s far-right National Militia as election monitors, international observers will also have the additional task of observing these unusual observers.


APRIL 1ST UPDATE



With more than 80% of the votes counted, results show that Zelensky received 30% of the vote and Poroshenko slightly above 16%. They will now face off in the second round on April 21st. Prior to the first round, many Ukrainian political experts were still forecasting a Poroshenko win in the second round, despite both Zelensky’s greater popularity and Poroshenko’s above-mentioned negative rating. Poroshenko’s full use of the advantages of incumbency and Zelensky’s inexperience were given as reasons for that prediction. Zelensky’s  strong showing may change the situation. Poroshenko drawing his strongest support from Western Ukraine, it also looks like this second tour may turn out to be a repeat of previous Eastern Ukraine/Western Ukraine confrontations. In any event, one well-known Ukrainian journalist inclined to sensational statements offered the comment that, should Poroshenko receive a second mandate, half of the country would leave.


--o--

BACK TO SQUARE ONE





The bromance between Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump had everything for it: two summits, one in Singapore and one in Vietnam, warm handshakes, exchange of love letters and assurances (by Trump) that he had no better buddy in the world than little Kim and that North Korea, by giving up its nukes, had a fast track into the family of nations and a bright future for its economy...However nothing came out of this as not a single set of sanctions was removed and North Korea moved swiftly to prepare itself and its multiple nuclear site for fresh launches.

As a consequence the relations between North and South Korea also went sour and the faint hope that a peace treaty would finally be signed after 66 years of state of war is no more.

The American approach is clear: no sanction relief without credible steps towards full denuclearization. On the other hand it is equally clear that North Korea is not going to give up its most valued asset. Its nuclear program is too vast, too complex and too much has been invested since its inception in the early 1950's. The ghost of Qaddafi, who only several years before having his country invaded and himself killed, gave his nuclear program up, is also something that Kim must often think about.


Though still in minority, more and more voices begin to express the view that maybe the time has come to accept North Korea into the nuclear club and deal with them as a legitimate nuclear power with all manner of control and supervision that this will bring. So maybe only then can the economic help and relief of sanctions be arranged, something that may change the country for the better.

--o--


VENEZUELA UPDATE: THE MONROE DOCTRINE, 195 YEARS LATER


Other than the major power shortages, there had been few new developments in the situation in Venezuela in the past month, until a few days ago when a Russian cargo aircraft brought in 100 Russian specialists and delivered tons of technical equipment into the country. There had been US-Russia consultation in Rome earlier in the month and one might have expected a lessening of tension, at least temporarily. The arrival of the Russian experts and their gear brought a quick end to that diplomatic pause. The arrival of the Russian aircraft drew a blunt reaction from Donald Trump: “Russia must get out of Venezuela”. Trump’s statement drew a strident response from the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, essentially challenging the US to explain on what legal basis it was issuing such an injunction.

All things considered, beyond this exchange of diplomatic fire, there is little progress or hope of progress in resolving the current crisis.


President James Monroe, 1758-1831

To justify their position vis a vis Venezuela and Russia, National Security Adviser John Bolton, among others, invoked the Monroe Doctrine. The Doctrine has obviously evolved since it was first outlined by President Monroe in 1823 in the colonial context of the time, but it is still largely perceived as the justification for US intervention in the affairs of Latin American States. Recourse to the Doctrine does not reinforce the US argument. It would only create discomfort among US allies in Latin America, but creating discomfort among allies anywhere does not seem to bother the Trump administration.


As for the Russian personnel and cargo, no one has publicly offered an explanation of their purpose. Given that the operation was not conducted very discretely, one would have to surmise that it does not have to do with some highly secret offensive military activity. This is not a repeat of the Cuban crisis of the 1960s.  One must as well conclude that the delivery in itself was intended to counter current or future US actions and to send a message in this respect. What technical capacity of the Venezuelan government and of its armed forces it was intended to support would most likely be known without much effort by US Intelligence. A very strong US reaction to Russia countering its plans was predictable. 

--o--

POMPEO LECTURES, PRESIDENT AOUN GOES FOR DINNER



Secretay of State Pompeo, Lebanese Foreign Minister Bassil
Beirut , March 22
©State Department

At the end of March, just a few days after receiving Secretary of State Pompeo, Lebanese President Michel Aoun travelled to Moscow for a state visit. Without much success, Pompeo had lectured the Lebanese government over the need to distance itself from Hezbollah (there are three Hezbollah representatives in the current Lebanese council of ministers). In Moscow President Aoun agreed with President Putin over the need to support efforts aimed at implementing the Russian initiative towards the return of refugees and agreed that the resolution of this problem depends directly on the creation of appropriate economic and social conditions in Syria through the reconstruction of the country. The two presidents called on the international community to support this process. For their own reasons Moscow and Beyrouth would like to see the return of refugees to Syria. By agreeing to the linkage of return of refugees to the reconstruction of the country, which is in turn dependent on a political solution in Syria, President Aoun brought the Lebanese position somewhat closer to the Russian one.


Presidents Aoun and Putin
March 26, Moscow
©President of Russia Website


Lebanon certainly does not have as much capacity as other countries in and outside of the region in terms of financing the reconstruction of Syria. Having it on board is, however, a useful first step in that direction.

The visit of President Aoun was also an opportunity to promote economic cooperation between Lebanon and Russia. Beyond the usual objectives of trade diversification on both sides Lebanon has an interest in the broader diversification of its economy and in the presence of large Russian corporations, especially in the energy sector.

Secretary of State Pompeo's demands would jettison the fragile equilibrium on which governement arrangements in Lebanon are dependent. In a way, although it may not have been planned that way initially, President Aoun’s discussions about the refugee issue nurturing of the Lebanon-Russia relationship is the indirect diplomatic response to Secretary of State Pompeo’s imprecations about Hezbollah: nothing can be done about Hezbollah and Lebanon has other more pressing priorities it can discuss with other partners. The Lebanon-Russia engagement does not in itself add another irritant to the list of US grievances about Russia, but it reminds the US that Russia can be a counterweight to US influence even in a country that receives military assistance from the US.

--o--

PERSON OF THE MONTH: NURSULTAN NAZARBAYEV



©President Nazarbayev Personal Website

President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan resigned in the most unusual manner for the leader of a former Soviet republic. Yet, it was not totally unexpected. Nazarbayev started with changing the Constitution by creating a Security Council aimed at supervising every branch of power. This allowed him to transfer some of his authority to the Security Council while becoming its Chairman for life. In many ways he followed in the footsteps of Deng Xiaoping, great Chinese reformer and leader of China in the 1980's who gradually relinquished his power while grooming new generation of leaders.

In a traditional Central Asian style that requires some additional symbolism in securing and prolonging power, Nazarbayev also was pronounced "El Basy" meaning Father of the Nation. As if not enough respect was paid to the great man, the capital city of Astana was renamed into Nursultan (Nazarbayev's first name).

The serious implications of Nazarbayev’s partial retirement are a change of priorities in Kazakhstan's long-term geopolitical strategy. Kazakhstan, though a staunch ally of Moscow, simultaneously began looking towards the Chinese economic model and its political implications. For example the new president Kassym-Jomart Tokayev speaks fluent Chinese and a majority of Kazakhstan's students now prefer to study in Chinese universities instead of schools in Russia. At the same time the leadership of Kazakhstan understands that in the age of rapidly developing Internet and massive influence of English across the globe and therefore Latin script was introduced in the country instead of cyrillic.

Nevertheless Nursultan Nazarbayev continues to be very popular leader in most capitals of post-Soviet countries, including Moscow

--o--

BRIEFLY NOTED


ARMENIA-AZERBAIJAN


Azerbaijan has launched large-scale military maneuvers ahead of an expected first meeting between President Ilham Aliyev and new Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian. According to Azerbaijan's Defense Ministry close to 10,000 troops, 500 tanks, 300 missile systems, aircraft, and other military equipment will take part in the five-day exercises.

Armenia's Foreign Ministry said the drills "do not contribute to the creation of an environment conducive to peace."

No date has been decided yet for the meeting between Pashinian and Aliyev over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, but both sides have voiced a willingness for them to take place.
James Appathurai, the NATO secretary-general's special representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia, welcomed Armenia's new approach toward easing tensions with Azerbaijan over the disputed region.

KYRGYZSTAN


Former Kyrgyz President Almazbek Atambaev has issued a public apology for helping to bring his successor to power. He also called his onetime ally an "autocrat" and promised to "rectify the mistake". Atambaev's recent statement  threatened to take his bitter feud with President Sooronbai Jeenbekov, the former prime minister he steered into office in 2016, to a new level.

Speaking at a public gathering marking the 17th anniversary of deadly violence against protesters in the southern town of Aksy, Atambaev accused Jeenbekov of creating an autocratic governing style based on family ties. There was no immediate direct response from Jeenbekov, who visited the Aksy district to commemorate the victims of the violence there and said he will "never allow the creation of autocratic clans in Kyrgyzstan."

On March 17, 2002, violence erupted at a demonstration in support of a jailed politician and police killed at least five protesters. The incident sparked widespread protests. It was the first deadly dispersal of demonstrators since Kyrgyzstan won independence in the Soviet collapse of 1991 and contributed to the anger that led to the ouster of President Askar Akaev in 2005.

Tambaev, who was limited to a single six-year presidential term by the constitution, vocally backed Jeenbekov in the October 2017 presidential election, but the two have exchanged public accusations of incompetence and lack of professionalism in recent months. In October, Kyrgyzstan's Supreme Court ruled that the immunity enjoyed by the country's former presidents is unconstitutional. In December, parliament gave preliminary approval to a bill that would eliminate immunity for ex-presidents, potentially opening the path for Atambaev's prosecution. 


TURKMENISTAN


Turkmenistan says it will privatize much of the state-owned transport system and gradually end funding for the country's Academy of Sciences as it looks to bolster its struggling economy and save money amid a continuing slump in its energy sector.

A decree published on January 30 by authoritarian President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov said the privatization process was "designed to help strengthen the competitiveness of the national economy," increase investment, and strengthen small and medium-sized businesses.
The president gave the Justice Ministry three months to propose legislation to transform the transport industry, but he did not indicate whether foreign companies would be able to invest in the privatized sector.
Meanwhile, the government also said state funding for the Academy of Sciences will be phased out over three years and that the organization will be streamlined.

Berdymukhammedov, 61, has ruled the gas-rich former Soviet republic since his autocratic predecessor, Saparmurat Niyazov, died in December 2006. Government critics and human rights groups say he has suppressed dissent and made few changes in the restrictive country since he came to power.

Turkmenistan's manat currency has lost a fifth of its value after the collapse of hydrocarbon prices in 2014, while Russian energy giant Gazprom's decision to cease purchasing Turkmen gas at the start of 2016 further hurt the economy.

The move left Turkmenistan even more reliant on demand from China, which last year imported 35 billion cubic meters of Turkmen gas via the Central Asia-China pipeline.

RUSSIA-TURKEY-HUNGARY


Russia will begin delivering natural gas to Hungary via the TurkStream pipeline in the second half of 2021, Peter Szijjarto, the Hungarian minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade said on March 21.
The TurkStream natural gas pipeline has a total capacity of 31.5 billion cubic meters, out of which the first line will carry a capacity of 15.75 billion cubic meters of Russian gas to Turkish consumers. The second line will carry another 15.75 billion cubic meters of gas to Bulgaria, then Serbia, Hungary and Slovakia via Turkey. 

ROMANIA


Following the example set by Donald Trump, Romanian Prime Minister Viorica Dăncilă this month that her country's embassy in Israel will be moved to Jerusalem. The idea of moving Romania's Israel embassy to Jerusalem was first suggested by Dragnea in 2017 after Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and promised to move the US embassy there.

The decision comes at a time when Romania is at odds with the European Union over the rule of law. The EU accused Romania, which currently holds the EU presidency, of backtracking on key reforms against corruption. Though the two issues are not linked, the overall tone of the EU-Romania relationship is affected. 

POLAND-RUSSIA


Russia’s Foreign Ministry said it was baffled by Poland’s refusal to invite a Russian delegation to a commemoration ceremony marking 80 years since the start of World War II.Poland declared this week that Russia has not been invited to the September ceremony because of its annexation of Crimea and activities in eastern Ukraine. It slammed Poland for “ignoring historical logic” and being guided by “short-term political ‘priorities,’” and accused it of falsifying “the record of World War II and the postwar period.”

--o--


THE AUTHORS



Ilya Gerol, former foreign editor of the Citizen in Ottawa, syndicated columnist in Canadian, US and European media specializing in international affairs. His particular area of expertise includes Russia, Eurasian Economic Union, Eastern and Central Europe.  Ilya Gerol has written several books, one of them, The Manipulators, had become a textbook on relations of media and society.

During his career in the Canadian Foreign Service, Gilles Breton had three assignments at the Canadian Embassy in Moscow. His first posting there began during the Soviet period, in 1983. His last was from 2008 to 2012 as Minister-Counsellor and Deputy Head of Mission. He also served as Deputy Director responsible for Canada’s relations with Russia from 2000 to 2008. As an international civil servant, he was Deputy Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights in Warsaw from 1994 to 1997.

Gilles Breton also currently serves as Chairman of the National Board of the Canada-Eurasia-Russia Business Association. The views expressed in this newsletter exclusively reflect the opinion of the authors.


Thursday, February 28, 2019

Issue 28



MUNICH SECURITY CONFERENCE IS REALLY ALL ABOUT WIDESPREAD INSECURITY


This time around the mid-February Munich Conference virtually cemented the broadening rupture in the security arrangements that existed between something that habitually is called the West on one side and Russia/China/Iran on the other. Within that rupture a growing split between the US and so-called "old Europe" (France, Germany and Italy) was also prominently pronounced in Munich. Long-time observers noted that Chancellor Merkel’s speech was one of her strongest ever. Her frontal attack on the US on trade matters was unusual in its directness.


Chancellor Merkel at the Munich Security Conference, February 16th
©Munich Security Conference


During the most dangerous and challenging turns of the Cold War like the Berlin Crisis (1961), the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) and in 1983 when the US and the USSR came very close to a full blown nuclear confrontation, there was a system of agreements, checks and diplomatic structures that not only prevented a hot war from unfolding, but managed to cut the nuclear arsenals of the US and the Soviet Union from 40,000 nuclear warheads to 8,000. This system is in shambles for various geopolitical reasons like the rise of nuclear states as India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and also the rapid and astonishing ascent of China, but in many ways due to the erratic, bombastic and somewhat neanderthal policies of Donald Trump. In the very case of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, the past practice of trying to work out differences has, for the US, been replaced by simply walking out of the arrangement.

One of less noticeable outcomes of this year’s Munich Conference is that discord between the US and Old Europe has brought about even more disagreements and disharmony among Europeans in general.


--o--


KOREA UPDATE



Presidents Kim Jong-un and Trump
Hanoi, February 27th


When even before his summit meeting with Kim Jong-un began President Trump said “I’m in no rush”, journalists should have started thinking about cancelling their extra hotel nights in Hanoi. It should have been clear that none of the preparatory work had been completed that could lead to a deal at the summit in Vietnam.

Kim has dismantled a nuclear test site and implemented a moratorium on nuclear and ballistic missile tests. He has received in exchange two meetings with the US President. Before he will make another concession on de-nuclearisation, he needs something in return. That would be most likely a softening of the sanctions against his country. Trump is in no position to offer anything significant as he seems to have taken an “all-or-nothing” approach: only complete de-nuclearisation would justify the lifting of sanctions. His political and security establishment would pillory him even more should he appear to make a concession to North Korea. Trump’s thoughtless comment about Kim not knowing about the torture of a US student has already put him in enough trouble already. An incremental approach to break the current deadlock would need a lot more work by Secretary of State Pompeo and National Security Advisor Bolton, both at home and in direct negotiations with North Korea.  That does not look like a priority for them at this time.

Kim wanted another summit to show that the negotiation process is still alive, but, despite the dire situation in his country, he too is in no rush. Trump needed a summit to show that during some hours of the day he still does his job as President.

In the absence a pre-negotiated arrangement, the Hanoi Summit turned out as shorter than expected social event. As for South Korea, it will have to recover from its disappointment and keep working at its own direct relationship with its Northern counterpart, without the benefit of a sanction-free environment.


--o--

PUTIN'S PROMISES TO IMPROVE DOMESTIC SITUATION MAY GIVE BOOST TO HIS RATING


For the first time in years the bulk of Putin's address to the Russian parliament-and, by extension, to the nation was concentrated on the economy, social welfare, medical care, the demographic crisis and overall living standards. He informed the parliament that the economic crisis has been overcome and that the country has started a long-term modernization program.


President Putin addressing the Federal Assembly, February 20th
©President of Russia Website


The main concern of the liberal opposition in Russia is that the stale bureaucratic system will not permit any significant changes. According to the Levada center, an independent sociological institute in Moscow, Putin's rating slightly went down after the most unpopular pension reform and introduction last year of a goods and services tax hike.

For the first time Putin openly stated that poverty rates in Russia are increasing: currently 19 million people stand below the poverty line. He announced a set of measures to strengthen the social net by increasing welfare payments and subsidies to mothers with two or more children.

Putin's most notable comments about the state of international affairs were his assurances that all Russian military postures are of defensive character and that Russia is not looking for a conflict with "such global power as the United states and will not be first to introduce new systems unilaterally, but also will swiftly retaliate not only against countries where the US is planning to station their intermediate nuclear weapons, but also against the so-called "decision making centers".


--o--

UNDERSTANDING VENEZUELA





On the basis of the majority of North American media reports, it is not always easy to understand the current crisis in Venezuela. If indeed the reports are right and so many of Venezuelans are living in abject misery, how is it possible for the Maduro regime to survive one day longer? The explanation then offered by the media is that there are probably still elements of Venezuelan society that support Maduro, including the armed forces and the poorest segments of the population outside Caracas. They are the ones who have gained under the Chavez-Maduro regime. In the case of the armed forces the gains include access to oil profits and allegedly lucrative drug trafficking.


President Maduro
©Wikipedia


There is as well an understandable temptation to look at the Venezuela problem as a classic ideological and economic conflict between the US and a left-leaning Latin American country. Yet, among the solutions that have been tried by the US with other countries in that same situation elsewhere in the region, measures in the case of Venezuela have been limited to political pressure and economic sanctions. The result has been constant tension between the two countries and a general stalemate. Venezuela is not necessarily too big to be bullied, but it is oil-rich and has over time distanced its military establishment from US counterparts, depriving the US from influence in this area as well as creating an army that could at least cause significant damage in the case of an open conflict.

At the broader international level, it has to be mentioned that Russia and China still support Maduro as they have a lot to lose in Venezuela. China has a $70 billion investment, Russia a $17 billion one. Russia by the way has sent some humanitarian aid to Caracas to substitute for blocked aid from the US.

Despite what Maduro may have said about the negative impact of US economic sanctions, it is the lower price of oil on the world market that has more directly led to the current economic crisis in Venezuela. In simple terms, Maduro and his government could not manage the loss of revenue without further increasing the polarization of society and causing a disastrous macro-economic situation leading to the impoverishment of the urban middle class and the shortage of essential goods.
Maduro had a reputation as an efficient manager as a minister, but he is not  as charismatic and intelligent as Chavez, his predecessor, with the ability to find real friends and supporters and maintain at least a semblance of order and social justice at least in short term as Chavez managed during his first years in power. Maduro has failed because, among other shortcomings,  he does not have the depth and political savvy that a left wing leader needs in that part of the world.


President Guaido
©Wikipedia


If the countries (including the US and most of the Lima Group*) that have pushed for the recognition of Juan Guaido, the president of the National Assembly, as the real president had an inkling of the highly polarized nature of Venezuelan society, of the support Maduro still has and of his determination to stay in power, how could they expect that the recognition of Guaido would not turn into a major confrontation? It could be argued that, since the status quo is utterly unacceptable any move to change things is better than doing nothing, and that there is no other option in the playbook. Besides, for Guaido and his national and international supporters, the only acceptable solution is Maduro’s departure, one way or another.

Orchestrating confrontation on the borders of the country over the delivery of US humanitarian assistance may have looked like a clever idea and a risk worth taking. After the failure of the humanitarian offer gambit, the main countries promoting Guaido as president have confirmed that a military intervention is not an option. Despite the strong statements by Trump and Pompeo, it was fairly clear in any event that the US had little appetite for a direct military intervention.
The path of peaceful political confrontation has not worked. The threat of military confrontation is no longer credible enough to be effective. Domestic political dialogue is virtually impossible. International negotiations have no basis on which to begin. Even the intervention of an international mediator seems impossible as it is perceived by the Venezuelan opposition as a means of keeping Maduro in power. The political standoff will continue until one side blinks. As any incremental economic improvement seems unlikely at this time, the humanitarian crisis will probably continue until the situation becomes even more disastrous.

*Twelve countries initially signed the Lima Group declaration: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay and Peru. Guyana and Saint Lucia joined later.


--o--

OF DEMOCRACY IN UKRAINE


The most important development in the ongoing presidential election campaign is the unexpected emergence of Vladimir Zelensky as the front-runner in the public opinion polls. Zelensky is now consistently ahead of President Poroshenko and former Prime Minister Tymoshenko who are battling for second place.


Presidential candidate Zelensky (middle) performing with his comedy team in 2018
©Wikipedia


As with other “populist” candidacies around the world, it did not take long for the political establishment to react by suggesting that a Zelensky victory would be a disaster for the country and that the electorate was perhaps not sufficiently well informed to appreciate the nature of the danger.

By profession Zelensky is an actor. His best role was as an anti-corruption President of Ukraine. His profession gives him name recognition, but it is the fact that he is not a professional politician or a senior official that makes him an attractive candidate. The more apt comparison may not be so much with reactionary reality show host Donald Trump, but with the Five Star Anti-establishment movement in Italy. In the Ukrainian context, the fact that he is perceived as outside of the corrupt system of government is a key factor. The suggestion that he may be backed up by Ihor Kholomoisky, a well-known oligarch, does not seem to have affected his reputation. What matters most is that he is a political outsider and that a sizable number of Ukrainian voters are willing to support him, if only to express their dissatisfaction with the current political establishment.

Zelensky is still in the process of fleshing out his political program. He suggested that, if elected, he would deal with Vladimir Putin directly to resolve the Donbass crisis. He also has taken the view that he would not support banning cultural figures from Russian and Ukraine to perform in one another’s country. This may look un-important, but strikes a different tone than currently prevails in official government circles. In a country where the Eurovision competition is still important and where the winner of the Ukrainian national Eurovision competition will not be allowed to represent her country on account of the fact she performed in Russia, such things seem to matter.

In any event, the campaign has already entered a stage where political programs are overtaken by political maneuvering and attempts to discredit opponents.

A few examples:

             Arsen Avakov, the current Minister of the Interior, suggested that President Poroshenko was sitting on a large sum of government money that he was going to spread generously during the campaign to bolster his candidacy

             A media source came out with the story that a company belonging to a close associate of President Poroshenko has profited from a 2015 operation that involved procuring spare parts from Russia for Ukrainian military equipment and selling the parts at an inflated price to the Ministry of Defence.

             The former Chief of Staff of the Ministry of Defence was formally accused of treason for the role he would have played in reducing Ukraine’s military preparedness prior to the annexation of Crimea. Retired Colonel General Zamana had ordered administrative re-arrangements that are now, five years after the fact, considered as treasonous. Thus, the failure to react to Russian actions in Crimea can be blamed on a newly-found traitor, thus absolving past political leaders from having failed at protecting the country.

             A story was allegedly leaked to the effect that a European ambassador, after having met with leading candidate Zelensky offered the following comments: “I thought he was a zero, now I see he is even less than that”.

The fact that there are so many candidates can be explained by the very nature of the political system. It is relatively easy to become a candidate. That is how it was intended. There are, however, candidates whose only presence on the ballot seems to serve to divide the vote, thus allowing a better known candidate to make it to the second round even with relatively modest support. The case of candidate Yuri Tymoshenko shows, however, less subtlety. By running as a candidate that has the same family name and initials as former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, he may be able to deprive her of enough votes to keep her from the second round. The trick is not new.

In the circumstances, the emergence of a candidate that is not a professional politician is altogether not surprising.


--o--


THE PUTIN SYSTEM (FOR KREMLINOLOGISTS)


Vladislav Surkov, an influential Kremlin insider often described as its éminence grise, has predicted a “glorious century” for the political system whose chief architect is Vladimir Putin. Writing in the Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper, Vladislav Surkov boldly declared that the so-called “putinism” has yet to see its peak. Surkov also predicted that even adversaries would end up copying his system. He called it "ideology of the future".


Vladislav Surkov
©Wikipedia
Putin’s system the article claims has “longevity built in”. It would last for decades because it was native, “organic”, and had already survived several shock tests. Surkov's overly optimistic assessment for the future of Putin's ideas should not be dismissed out of hand for the simple reason that Putin and his approach to Russia, his ideas and implementation of his methods not just come from the top but have a wide-spread appeal in all sectors of Russian society.

Surkov was responsible for the Kremlin’s domestic strategy during the 2000s. He could be credited with creating much of Russia’s postmodern, authoritarian model of government. He called the system “managed democracy”, a term that critics suggested was only ever half true. Knowing Russia's legendary tendency for violence and chaos and what the country went through in the 1990's, Surkov's gravitation towards Thomas Hobbes and his absolute sovereign/Leviathan is more than understandable. While it is obvious that Russia needs a strong state, it may not also need a strongman.

In his long and often rambling article, the new ideologue stayed close to his historical form. Russia was strong, he argued, only because it had rejected western notions and democratic institutions. Such institutions only gave an “illusion of choice”, and were inferior to Russia’s wise leader, who was able to “listen, understand and see” his people.

“The modern model of Russian statehood begins on trust and rests on trust,” he claims. “This is its major distinction to the western model, which cultivates distrust and criticism. And herein lies its strength.” 

Surkov spared little praise of his boss. In time, Putin’s Russia would be recognized Russia’s fourth great “model of state-building”, he said – and on a par with the efforts of Ivan the Great in the 15th century, Peter the Great in the 18th century, and Vladimir Lenin in the 20th century.

Putin’s system was also ripe for export, Surkov added. Foreign governments were already paying close attention, since the Russian “political algorithm” had long predicted the volatility now seen in western democracies.

Ideology was important during the Soviet times. An intellectual construct that serves as the justification for the prevailing political system may still be necessary. Surkov provides that by crediting Putin for having created a new model of governance and by expounding the traditional Russian criticism that Western democracies and their established political parties only provide a semblance of choice. The election of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton could well be one of the examples he had in mind: the candidate who receives less popular vote gets elected and then presides over a divided country.

All things considered, some of Surkov’s criticism of Western democracy may rest on better ground than his glorification of the Putin system.


--o--


PERSON OF THE MONTH: MOHAMMAD-JAVAD ZARIF



Iranian Foreing Minister Zarif at the Munich Security Conference
©Munich Security Conference, February 17th


He is known as the international face of the Islamic Republic of Iran that recently marked 40th anniversary of the 1979 revolution.  Throughout the years Mr. Zarif has excelled in putting a more sophisticated and humane spin on often bellicose rhetoric that comes from the religious leaders in Iran and has been regarded as “Iran’s last link to the West”.

Born in 1960, Zarif is an Iranian diplomat and politician and the current minister of foreign affairs in the Rouhani administration. Zarif has held various significant diplomatic and cabinet posts since the 1990s. He is also an associate professor at the University of International Relations, teaching diplomacy and international law. He was the Permanent Representative of Iran to the United Nations from 2002 to 2007. Zarif has held other domestic and international positions as well: senior adviser to the Foreign Minister, Deputy Foreign Minister in Legal and International affairs. 

After the US withdrew from the nuclear treaty with Iran, Zarif's main task-was not an easy one. He has done a fair job at maintaining balanced and good relations with the Europeans who still insist that Iran should honor the deal so as to make it to the end of the Trump presidency in the hope that a new US administration in 2021 would step away from the current inflexible anti-Iranian line.
At the Munich Security Conference in mid-February Zarif nevertheless did not mince his words in calling for the Europeans to do more to save the nuclear deal with his country. Along with Merkel’s above noted presentation, Zarif’s speech was regarded as a “highlight” of this high-powered international conference.

Zarif resigned as Foreign Minister on February 25th, but was back at work on the 27th, President Rouhani having rejected his resignation. A credible rumour is that the reason for the short-lived resignation was Zarif’s displease with his lack of involvement in the very recent visit of Syrian President Assad to Iran. Resigning and having the resignation rejected allowed him to protect his role as the key person in charge of foreign affairs.


--o--

BRIEFLY NOTED



RUSSIA


Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov says the Kremlin is following the situation involving the detention of a prominent American investment-fund manager who is accused of large-scale fraud in Russia. Talking to reporters in Moscow on February 18th, Peskov said that the arrest of Michael Calvey, the head of the Baring Vostok investment company, has nothing to do with a deterioration in Russian-U.S relations. «The state of Russia's ties with other countries has no impact whatsoever on the business activities of foreign investors here," Peskov said, adding that Russia has always been interested in creating "comfortable conditions for foreign investments and that Mr. Calvey is a serious investor in our economy who has always supported the idea of the Russian market's attractiveness."
Peskov also said that Russian President Vladimir Putin had met Calvey many times at business forums and other gatherings in Russia in the past, but that Calvey's detention was beyond Putin's competence.

On February 16th, a court in Moscow remanded Calvey in custody until April 13th, pending trial. Calvey denies any wrongdoing. 

Founded in 1994, Baring Vostok is one of the largest private-equity firms in Russia and the former Soviet Union, according to the firm's website. It manages more than $3.7 billion in assets. It is particularly active in the technology sector and owns a stake in the Yandex search engine. Before founding Baring Vostok, Calvey worked for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development as well as for Salomon Brothers. He is also a member of the board of directors of the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington.


BELARUS


Belarus will always be a reliable partner for the European Union and hopes that this approach in the bilateral relations will be reciprocal, Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko said as he met with European Commissioner for Budget and Human Resources Gunther Oettinger on February 18th.
“I want to assure you that Belarus always pursues a balanced and well-considered policy in relations with its neighbors. We believe that neighbors are given to us by God, we do not choose them. With this in mind, we will always be a reliable partner for the European Union but of course we want such feelings to be reciprocal,” Alexander Lukashenko said.


ARMENIA


French President Emmanuel Macron has declared April 24 as a "national day of commemoration of the Armenian genocide. «Macron made the announcement on February 5th at a dinner for the Armenian community in France, honoring a campaign promise from his 2017 election campaign.
France was among the first nations to denounce "the murderous hunt of the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire," he said at the annual dinner organized by the Coordinating Council of Armenian Organizations of France (CCAF).

France officially recognized the World War I-era mass slaughter and deportation of up to 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks as genocide in 2001. At least 22 other countries, including Germany, have taken a similar step. Armenia says the mass killing is one of the first examples of genocide in modern history, pre-dating the Holocaust carried out by Nazi Germany against more than 6 million Jews during World War II.

Turkey objects, saying that Armenians died in much smaller numbers and because of civil strife rather than a planned, systemic effort by the Ottoman government against the Christian minority.


GEORGIA/NORTH MACEDONIA


The Prime Minister of Georgia, an ex-Soviet republic that aspires to join NATO, has hailed the Western military alliance’s decision to allow North Macedonia to join.

“We see that NATO is pursuing an open-door policy and this is the only right response to the challenge coming from the Russian Federation,” Prime Minister Mamuka Bakhtadze said in interviews on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference on February 17th.

On February 12th the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was officially renamed the Republic of North Macedonia, under a landmark agreement to normalize relations with Greece, that also allows Northern Macedonia to enter NATO.

Bakhtadze made the comments after Skopje signed a protocol on February 6th that could see North Macedonia become NATO’s 30th member if the move is ratified by all current members of the alliance.

Moscow has made explicit its opposition to NATO’s further expansion, especially as regards to Georgia and Ukraine. Ukraine’s accession to NATO is a key element of President Poroshenko’s election platform. Most other presidential candidates also generally support the idea.


TAJIKISTAN


Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has called a Russian military base in Tajikistan "an important factor for Tajikistan's security. «Speaking to journalists in Dushanbe on February 5th after talks with Tajik Foreign Minister Sirojiddin Muhriddin, Lavrov said Moscow is ready to assist Tajikistan in the modernization of its armed forces and "strengthening the state border," taking into account, among other things, "existing threats that continue to be imposed from the territory of Afghanistan."

"I would like to stress the role of Russia’s 201st Military Base [in Tajikistan], which is an important factor of Tajikistan’s security," Lavrov said. About 7,000 troops from Russia’s 201st Motor Rifle Division are stationed at three facilities that are considered part of the Russian base in Tajikistan.
Lavrov, who started his Central Asian tour on February 4th with a visit to Kyrgyzstan, said in Bishkek earlier that Moscow is open to talks about setting up a second Russian military base in Kyrgyzstan if Kyrgyz authorities initiate the issue.


KAZAKHSTAN


At the end of February, President Nazarbayev appointed a new Council of Ministers and a new Central Bank Governor. The President’s dissatisfaction with the previous government’s economic performance seems to have been the main reason for the re-shuffling of senior ministers and appointing a new Prime Minister in the person of Askar Mamin who was previously Vice Prime Minister. Perhaps more important is the appointment of Yerbolat Dossayev, a former businessman, as Central Bank Governor, as it would signal the intention to tackle the serious problems of the country’s banking sector.


UZBEKISTAN


Uzbekistan's Central Bank has announced it is introducing a new 100,000 som banknote as of February 25th.The bank announced on February 16th that for the first time the banknote will have a special sign for blind people. The new banknote will be worth about $12, according to the official exchange rate.

Currently, the 50,000 som banknote is the largest denomination in Uzbekistan and was introduced in August 2017. Uzbek economists have said for years that the introduction of 50,000 and 100,000 som banknotes was necessary to address a problem with cash payments in a country where an unusually large number of bills is needed to purchase ordinary items.



THE AUTHORS


Ilya Gerol, former foreign editor of the Citizen in Ottawa, syndicated columnist in Canadian, US and European media specializing in international affairs. His particular area of expertise includes Russia, Eurasian Economic Union, Eastern and Central Europe.  Ilya Gerol has written several books, one of them, The Manipulators, had become a textbook on relations of media and society.

During his career in the Canadian Foreign Service, Gilles Breton had three assignments at the Canadian Embassy in Moscow. His first posting there began during the Soviet period, in 1983. His last was from 2008 to 2012 as Minister-Counsellor and Deputy Head of Mission. He also served as Deputy Director responsible for Canada’s relations with Russia from 2000 to 2008. As an international civil servant, he was Deputy Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights in Warsaw from 1994 to 1997.


Gilles Breton also currently serves as Chairman of the National Board of the Canada-Eurasia-Russia Business Association. The views expressed in this newsletter exclusively reflect the opinion of the authors.