Issue 13

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 25^th 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.

--o--

PRE-ELECTION SHUFFLE: PUTIN'S STYLE

President Putin meeting with former regional leaders, Moscow, November 2nd
©President of Russia Website

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--

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 21^st 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.

--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.  

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.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

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.