THE BRETON/GEROL NEWSLETTER
PECULIARITY OF A POLITICAL BROMANCE
 |
| Presidents Putin and Trump, Danang, Vietnam, November 11th ©President of Russia Website |
Two
meetings in November, the APEC Summit in Vietnam and the ASEAN Summit in Manila, had been considered to be the best possible platform for presidents
Trump and Putin to hold personal one-on-one meetings. Trump had even shared a
potential agenda for that. Russians, after a year of Trump presidency, have,
however, learned how to be cautious when it comes to Donald Trump’s promises.
Already in Vietnam, the American side offered Putin and his delegation to hold
a meeting at the American premises at the Summit. The Russian side rejected the
offer with the suggestion to hold the sit down at a neutral site on Summit
premises. This time, the American side refused and the long anticipated meeting
between Putin and Trump did not take place. The not very well camouflaged
reality of the situation is that Trump avoided a direct meeting with Putin due
to the ongoing investigation back home into allegation of collusion and Russian
interference into the 2016 elections. The White House thus made sure that the
meeting with Putin would not take place in Vietnam. There was a brief
handshake, exchange of a few words, but nothing of substance took place. A
joint declaration on Syria was released, but even that was presented as the
work of Tillerson and Lavrov. It looks like the Russians understood the
Administration's dilemma and blamed the absence of a meeting on technicalities.
To avoid another mishap of that kind, Putin decided not to travel to Manila for the ASEAN Summit next day but dispatched his trusted, harmless sidekick Prime
Minister Medvedev.
The
compensation took form in a lengthy telephone conversation between Trump and
Putin covering all major issues of the day between two countries: Syria,
Ukraine, and North Korea.
There is an
undeniable chemistry between the very different intellects and personalities of
Putin and Trump therefore the world can only hope that sooner or later the leaders
will be able to sit down together for a long and detailed discussion on the most
burning global issues.
--o--
COURTING CHINA
 |
| Presidents Putin and Xi Jinping, Danang, Vietnam, November 10th ©President of Russia Website |
Moscow's
expectations for close partnership with China, at least on the political level,
have not materialized. The ASEAN meeting in Manila proved that economic
cooperation with the United States influences Chinese policy internationally
more than any other consideration. China agreed with President Trump to ease the
flow of American goods into the Chinese market. While ideologically and
philosophically Beijing's rulers are closer to Moscow's traditions and
interpretation of reality, first and foremost they are pragmatic. This is
expressed by the recent Chinese decision to start negotiations with US
companies on the possibility of purchasing American condensed gas. That move
takes place in parallel with several contracts that China has with Russia’s Gazprom.
In a significant move Chinese banks removed themselves from financing the
construction of the Kerch bridge that will connect the Russian mainland with
Crimea. At the same time, China keeps its multi-billion dollar deals with the Russian
military industrial complex and continues to invest heavily into Siberian
infrastructure. Both Moscow and Washington compete for Beijing's attention.
President Trump asked China to exert serious pressure on the North Korean
regime. Following his request, China dispatched an envoy to Pyongyang and
suspended air travel between two countries. Moscow, on the other hand, wants to
coordinate with China a less confrontational approach to Kim and his nuclear
games. China, wisely, goes along with that approach as well.
China
achieved a strategic advantage: Moscow and Washington more than ever look to
Beijing for global solutions.
--o--
UKRAINE: SOLEMN REMEMBRANCE, EU PROMISES AND, STILL, MR. SAAKASHVILI
 |
| President Poroshenko paying tribute to the victims of the Holodomor of 1932-1933, November 25th ©President of Ukraine Website |
In Ukraine,
November 25th officially marks the “Day of Remembrance of the
Holodomor Victims of 1932-1933”. The Holodomor is also being called, among
other names, the Great Famine. President Poroshenko participated in
commemorative events and issued the required statements. He also took a few
predictable shots at Russia as successor state of the USSR. The fulfillment of
these presidential duties immediately followed Poroshenko’s visit to Brussels
on the occasion of the Fifth Eastern Partnership Summit with the EU. Beyond the
usual re-affirmations of support for Ukraine from the European Union,
Poroshenko singled out the fact that he “managed to unite the European Union
around the idea of a peacekeeping mission in the Donbas”. On this issue, Poroshenko
allows himself a rather generous reading of the rather general wording in the final
statement of the Summit.
The
emphasis on the role of the European Union is, however, far from misplaced. If
any progress can be made in resolving, even partially, the conflict in Eastern
Ukraine in the near future, the impetus will have to come from two EU leaders
already active on this file, Chancellor Merkel and President Macron. Through
their personal involvement in the discussions with Ukraine and Russia, they may
be able to arrive at a modus vivendi
that could open the door to a relative normalization of relations with Russia,
including the removal of some sanctions. With a new president being elected in
Ukraine in 2018, a lesser dependence on the military conflict as a unifying
factor might lead to a workable and permanent ceasefire. As for the Trump
administration, it is, for the foreseeable future, in no position to procure an
arrangement that would satisfy Moscow without that being called in the US a
concession to puppet master Putin. In other words, regardless of possible
EU-inspired incremental progress, Ukraine will, for the foreseeable future,
remain a bone of contention that will prevent the US and Russia from
significantly improving their relationship.
As for
Mikheil Saakashvili, he seems to have boundless energy: despite the harassment
of some of his personal associates, he continues to rattle President
Poroshenko’s chain with his popular campaign against corruption and the
oligarchic system. Whether the campaign will lead to actual political change or
become a permanent distraction remains to be seen.
The first step in renewing the upper echelon of regional power in Russia was a large-scale dismissal of governors, including those who were with Putin from his early days as President. In his speeches and press-conferences Putin has justified such a move as needed for the modernization of political mechanisms, more precisely a move away from the command and control system to a more efficient and innovative one. Considering that the Russian economy finally shows some moderate growth, it is, according to Putin, essential to replace the old guard with younger, more imaginative, educated and independently-minded (to certain extent, of course) people who would deal with local development issues without looking over their shoulder while constantly seeking approval from the President. One could argue that Putin is trying to improve the system he himself created. At one point (2000-2006) when Russia was in deep decline and disarray, Putin's power vertical was a necessary model, but a decade later such an approach proved to be outdated and inefficient.
--o--
PRE-ELECTION SHUFFLE: PUTIN'S STYLE
 |
| President Putin meeting with former regional leaders, Moscow, November 2nd ©President of Russia Website |
--o--
SYRIA: VLADIMIR PUTIN, MARATHON MAN AND PLAY MASTER
 |
| Presidents Assad and Putin, Sochi, Russia, November 21st ©President of Russia Website |
Only in
November, and mostly in connection with the conflict in Syria, Vladimir Putin called
the presidents of France and Kazakhstan, had a long conversation with the US
President, received the President of Turkey, called the Emir of Qatar, received
the President of Syria, called the US President, the King of Saudi Arabia, the
President of Egypt, the Prime Minister of Israel, and then held a trilateral
meeting with the Presidents of Iran and Turkey.
Two
observations follow. If anyone ever doubted that Russia, through Putin himself,
and to the chagrin of the US foreign policy establishment, was leading on the
Syria file, those doubts are proven groundless. As well, as Putin previously
stated, Russia engages all possible interlocutors in the conflict and is in a
position to have a dialogue with all parties, an undeniable comparative
advantage.
Even though
there is acknowledgement that the military phase of the conflict in Syria is
far from over, the emphasis, especially in the conversation with Bashar El Assad
was on the post-conflict normalization of the situation in Syria, and the
proposal to convene in Sochi a congress of Syrian national dialogue. The
expressed objective is a long-term normalization of the situation in Syria. As
noted in the joint statement issued by the Presidents of Iran, Turkey and
Russia, the day after Putin’s meeting with Assad, the expressed objective is
the adoption of a new constitution, that has the support of the Syrian people,
and the conduct of free and fair elections in which all Syrians entitled to
vote could participate and which would be suitably observed by the UN. It seems
unusual for such a promotion of democracy to emanate from the three countries
in question rather than from the EU or the US. The proof will, of course, be in
the implementation. Whereas Syrians themselves, after
years of a bloody conflict, may be ready for a transition to democracy, a key
element will be the attitude of the other main regional players toward this
process.
--o--
SYRIA: SHOULD
THEY STAY OR SHOULD THEY GO?
 |
| Presients Rohani, Putin and Erdogan, Sochi, Russia, November 22nd ©President of Russia website |
Now that
the Islamic State has virtually lost all the territory it used to control in
Syria, it is no longer possible to accuse the Russia-Iran alliance to have
targeted only the Syrian rebels opposed to President Assad. The routing of ISIS
is too evident and too far-reaching to have been only the work of the USA and
its Kurdish allies. Donald Trump may claim that under his presidency the US
fight against ISIS has dramatically improved, but few observers would pay
attention to his usual exaggerations. The question as to who is fighting whom
has now shifted from a question for Syria to a question for the US. If no
longer fighting ISIS, what adversary are the US troops in Syria fighting? The
US joining with Russia, as noted above, in supporting the territorial integrity
of Syria does not absolutely mean that there could not be a US military
presence in Syria. The US could invoke its previous commitment to the Kurds and
even pretend it has an implicit an international mandate to be in Syria. The
objective would be to continue undermining Assad’s presidency as well as to
prevent Iran from cementing its position in Syria. Russia, that has voiced the
expectation that US troops would leave Syria would be upset, but not as much as
President Erdogan for whom the Kurds in Syria are only an extension work of his
own Kurdish problem at home. Saudi Arabia and Israel, allies of convenience, as
Israel recently admitted, would see the continuing presence of US troops in
Syria as standing up to Iran and Hezbollah.
Even more
problematic is the presence of Turkish troops in Syria as well the support of
Turkey for certain rebel groups in Northern Syria. The alleged US promise no
longer to provide weapons to Kurdish forces will not be enough to make Turkey
adopt a more hands off approach, even though Turkey also joined Iran and Russia
in supporting the principle of territorial integrity of Syria.
--o--
SYRIA: THE MOSSAD FOOT NOTE
The Russian
presidency report on the November 21st phone conversation between
President Putin and Prime Minister Netanyahu has some interesting final words.
“Both parties expressed interest in
furthering mutually beneficial cooperation in a variety of areas, including
contacts between special services.” In other words Russian security
services and the Mossad, their Israeli counterpart, are expected to cooperate even more than is already the
case. This is obviously a way of assuaging Israeli fears about Hezbollah/Iran
presence in Syria. It should also make Donald Trump feel less guilty about
allegedly sharing Mossad intelligence with Russia. The Russians most likely
already had the intelligence in question, and maybe more.
--o--
THE DOGS
BARK, THE CARAVAN MOVES ON
 |
| Presidents Putin, Rohani and Aliev, Teheran, November 1st ©President of Russia Website |
A
relatively unnoticed trilateral meeting took place in Teheran in early
November. The Presidents of Azerbaijan, Iran and Syria got together for a
discussion that was ostensibly focused on economic matters, namely
transportation infrastructure and the delivery of energy.
The key
issues to mention include:
- The continuing support for the development of the North-South rail corridor that allows shipments to travel from India via Iran to Russia.
- Russia, Iran and Azerbaijan are large hydrocarbon producers: they do not have to compete, but instead can and should coordinate their efforts.
- For logistic reasons, the three countries have an interest in supplying hydrocarbon to each other.
Russia is
taking advantage of the international political situation to develop its
economic relationship with Iran. The pivot to the east includes the Middle
East.
By
involving Azerbaijan, Russia prevents the emergence of a competitive energy
cluster centering on Azerbaijan. The recent opening of the Baku-Tbilissi-Kars
rail route (linking Azerbaijan to Turkey through Georgia), whose initial purpose
was to bypass Russia, is no longer seen as so threatening for Russia.
November was a month of intense political activity for the Turkish president, who shuttled between Russia, Iran and key Arab states. This hyper activity culminated in a Joint Declaration issued in Sochi by Erdogan, Putin and their Iranian counterpart Rohani on post-war security and cooperation in Syria. In this newly formed triad the most challenging position was that of Erdogan: he always insisted that Syrian President Assad had to go and Turkish relations with Iran were always strained to say the least, but he managed to overcome his own pre-conceived notions and adapt to the new political reality. The reward for Turkey was in the acceptance by Russia, Iran and the Assad regime of a Turkish role and influence in the parts of Syrian territory bordering Turkey, including Turkey's “control” over Syrian Kurds in the area. Erdogan’s relations with the United States meanwhile are worsening. Erdogan stubbornly insists on the extradition of Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish religious leader living in exile in the US, who according to the Turkish President was behind the failed July 2016 coup in Turkey. General Flynn, Former National security adviser to President Trump, has been accused, among other things, of accepting $500,000 from Ankara to lobby in favour of Gulen’s extradition. Soon after announcing that Turkey was not interested anymore in pursuing EU membership, Erdogan made more serious hints: Ankara was mulling a possibility to leave NATO, the alliance Turkey helped to establish. Moreover, Turkey already paid $2.5 billion for the Russian made S-400, the most advanced Russian anti-aircraft missile system, triggering strong criticism by the US.
--o--
PERSON OF THE MONTH: RECEP TAYYIP ERDOĞAN
November was a month of intense political activity for the Turkish president, who shuttled between Russia, Iran and key Arab states. This hyper activity culminated in a Joint Declaration issued in Sochi by Erdogan, Putin and their Iranian counterpart Rohani on post-war security and cooperation in Syria. In this newly formed triad the most challenging position was that of Erdogan: he always insisted that Syrian President Assad had to go and Turkish relations with Iran were always strained to say the least, but he managed to overcome his own pre-conceived notions and adapt to the new political reality. The reward for Turkey was in the acceptance by Russia, Iran and the Assad regime of a Turkish role and influence in the parts of Syrian territory bordering Turkey, including Turkey's “control” over Syrian Kurds in the area. Erdogan’s relations with the United States meanwhile are worsening. Erdogan stubbornly insists on the extradition of Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish religious leader living in exile in the US, who according to the Turkish President was behind the failed July 2016 coup in Turkey. General Flynn, Former National security adviser to President Trump, has been accused, among other things, of accepting $500,000 from Ankara to lobby in favour of Gulen’s extradition. Soon after announcing that Turkey was not interested anymore in pursuing EU membership, Erdogan made more serious hints: Ankara was mulling a possibility to leave NATO, the alliance Turkey helped to establish. Moreover, Turkey already paid $2.5 billion for the Russian made S-400, the most advanced Russian anti-aircraft missile system, triggering strong criticism by the US.
November
was a good month for Erdogan but the future may not be as rosy. Growing
internal instability, continuing repression within Turkish society and the Army,
along with corruption charges against the president and his family, could
derail Erdogan's populist drive and make him a target of popular discontent.
--o--
CANADA-RUSSIA
RELATIONS AT LOWEST POINT EVER
 |
| Minister Lavrov © MID Russia |
 |
| Minister Freeland © House of Commons |
It was Russia that formally breached the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 which guaranteed Ukrainian territorial integrity in exchange for Kiev's transfer of its Soviet-made nuclear arsenal to Russia (Ukraine at the time had operational control over the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world). By absorbing Crimea and throwing its support behind Russian-speaking separatists in Eastern Ukraine, Moscow initiated the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. The US and most EU countries, while staunchly supporting Ukraine in this conflict, also see its complexity and possible solutions rather than just a black and white picture. They continue to keep high-level contacts with Moscow including among foreign ministers and heads of governments. After all, Russia continues to be one of only five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and a major player on the world stage. Canada practically cut every meaningful political contact with Russia, removing itself from any possibility of playing a constructive role in possible solutions to the crisis. Maybe Ottawa should undertake modest steps to rejoin its traditional allies and restore some degree of functionality in its relations with Russia, if only to have a chance to advance other Canadian interests than Ukraine.
--o--
BRIEFLY NOTED
CHINA-NORTH KOREA
Early in the second half of November, China sent one of its high-ranking officials to North Korea. According to Seoul
sources it was Lee Bon Young, the deputy chairman of the special security
committee that supervises different branches of the Chinese intelligence services.
Surprisingly Mr. Lee was not received by Kim himself. Negotiations took place
with a group of senior army officers. Observers in Hong Kong and mainland China
believe that the talks in Pyongyang failed to convince the North Korean side to
slow down its nuclear ambitions. This assessment proved to be correct: three
days upon the Chinese delegation return to Beijing, China abruptly cut all
flights to North Korea.
On November 29th, North Korea tested another ballistic missile, for the first time in two months. The missile, according to North Korea, held a warhead capable of re-entering the earth's atmosphere and could have hit the US mainland. The North Korean leader reportedly stated that North Korea is now a true nuclear power.
On November 29th, North Korea tested another ballistic missile, for the first time in two months. The missile, according to North Korea, held a warhead capable of re-entering the earth's atmosphere and could have hit the US mainland. The North Korean leader reportedly stated that North Korea is now a true nuclear power.
ARMENIA
After having made a "friendly" official visit to Russia in mid-November, Serge
Sargsyan, the President of Armenia attended for the first time the Eastern
Partnership Summit in Brussels to witness the signing of the European Union-Armenia Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership on the 24th of November. The reaction of media in
Russia was predominantly negative. The Kremlin meanwhile refused to comment.
Brussels however felt it necessary to issue a special statement emphasizing
that the Eastern Partnership is not directed against Russia, but, on the
contrary, will bring Russia and its allies to a greater level of cooperation
with the European Union.
LATVIA
A special
economic commission in Riga has concluded that the transit flow through the ports
of Riga, Ventspils and Liepaya, that has traditionally been the backbone of the
Latvian economy, had lost more than 30 percent of volume in recent years. Oil,
steel, various agricultural products as well as other goods exported from
Russia to Europe and Asia are now being increasingly directed through the ports
of Murmansk, St. Petersburg and Ust-Luga - old and new Russian harbors. The
reason is the rapidly worsening relations between Riga and Moscow. According to
the Association of Latvia’s industrialists, there is a need to get out of this
crisis and begin movement towards some degree of economic cooperation.
COUN
The Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) announced its intent to ease up the
previously enforced sanctions against Russia and gradually make Moscow again a
full-fledged member of PACE. Two years ago Russia was deprived of its voting
power as a result of events in Crimea and Donbas. This latest pronouncement
triggered a strong condemnation by Ukraine.
UKRAINE
A recent
mini-coup in Luhansk, the main city of the self-proclaimed Luhansk Republic
resulted in the resignation of Igor Plotnitsky and appointment, in his place,
of Leonid Pasechnik as interim leader. The real reason behind the dismissal of Plotnitsky
was that Mr. Pasechnik, the former State Security minister in that turbulent part
of Donbas, appeared to be more radical in its separatism and anti-Ukrainian
stand. BGN sources confirmed that one possible scenario for the development in
that part of Ukraine controlled by separatists could be the unification of the two
self-proclaimed republics (Donetsk and Luhansk) into one entity. Technically,
this could ease the implementation of the Minsk agreement. Some observers, however,
point out that such a development could only strengthen Moscow's control over
the area.
RUSSIA-JAPAN
Complex and
strategic, two-tracked negotiations recently began in two working groups of
Russian and Japanese economists, logistic specialists and scientists. The talks
will explore possibilities to increase the volume of Japanese exports to Europe
through the Russian Northern Sea Route which potentially can shorten time and
costs of transit by one third. The second project under discussion sounds more
monumental: the construction of a bridge
between the Northern Japanese island of Hokkaido and the Russian Far East
mainland. This project could shorten export transit routes even more
dramatically.
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.
