Skip to main content

Putin’s New ‘Fortress Russia’

By ARIEL COHEN

AS members of the Russian punk-rock band Pussy Riot appeal their two-year prison sentence for a political protest in Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, a pale of repression is settling over their country. This crackdown is wrapped in legislative garb, but the iron grip of authoritarianism is unmistakable.
Vladimir Putin’s tightening of the screws is a part of a broader pattern, which includes a return to confrontation with the United States and NATO. The United States must specifically recognize that its “reset” policy of see no evil, hear no evil has contributed to the trampling of human rights in Russia.
Moscow is cozying up to China, supporting the Assad regime in Syria and ignoring the Iranian nuclear race. The Kremlin is hard at work to create a sphere of influence along its periphery and a “pole” in the multipolar world that would stand up to Washington.
Recent developments have an unmistakably flavor of the 1920s and 1930s, when the Soviets sent people the Gulag simply for who they were, not for what they did. For example, the Cheka — the grandfather of Russia’s security service, the F.S.B — preventively arrested those of noble descent or with relatives abroad.
Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Soviet state and a lawyer by training, wrote: “The courts should not do away with terror — to promise otherwise would be to deceive ourselves and others — but should give it foundation and legality, clearly, honestly and without embellishments.” One wonders if the sorcerer has become a role model for the apprentice. Putin has called Stalin “an effective manager.”
In this spirit, three weeks ago, the Duma unanimously passed new amendments proposed by the F.S.B. that will expand the definition of “high treason.” The charge now can be applied to almost any Russian citizen who works with foreign organizations or has ever had contact with a foreigner.
“Treason” no longer refers only to a concrete crime, such as knowingly passing state secrets to a foreign power. It can apply to any behavior that the state secret services, prosecutors and judges deem as undermining “constitutional order, sovereignty and territorial and state integrity.”
Moreover, the courts, which sit in judgment on treason cases, are not truly independent. The Kremlin has expanded “telephone justice” (a Soviet practice), by which judges receive verbal instructions from the top on how to decide cases. Prominent opponents of the government, such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky, former chief executive of the Yukos oil company, are sentenced to lengthy prison terms, which are widely seen as politically motivated.
These changes are in addition to a package of Draconian laws and practices that curtail citizens’ rights — introduced this year with nary a protest from the Obama administration:
• In June, the Duma passed a law that criminalized unauthorized protests, giving the government the ability to fine organizers exorbitant sums.
• In July, the Duma approved a bill that allows the government to block Web sites it deems harmful to the public.
• The law on registration of nongovernment organizations now requires that every “politically active” NGO that receives funding from abroad must register as a “foreign agent.”
• The Duma is considering a bill “on the protection of religious feelings of the citizens of Russia,” which criminalizes blasphemy and includes the possibility of a prison term. The courts would use “experts” close to the Orthodox Church to determine what is blasphemous. The regime would then decide which offensive materials to censor, just as the authorities in Rostov recently banned the rock opera “Jesus Christ Superstar.”
The blasphemy law is a sop to the Russian Orthodox patriarch, Kirill I, who is expanding the church’s function as an ideological crutch for the state. The law is also an important step in distancing Russia from Western values, which the liberal intelligentsia has desperately tried to inculcate for the last quarter of a century. Slavophiles and “Eurasianists” are on the ascendancy.
The recent legislative developments have severe geopolitical implications. Putin is implementing a “Fortress Russia” policy, which is based on repression at home and confrontation abroad. It is used to justify a $700 billion military buildup.
The Obama administration “reset” needs a serious reassessment, and so does the overall relationship with Russia. America should pursue its national interests in relations with Moscow, instead of chasing a feel-good mirage.
Washington should work to advance individual rights, democracy and free media through public diplomacy and pinpointed support of worthy causes. Washington should cooperate with those along the Russian periphery and in Europe who are concerned about the growth of Russia’s sphere of influence. Finally, the United States and its allies should engage international organizations, expert communities, mass and social media to counter the crackdown in Russia.
It is preferable to engage now, before the specter of a more authoritarian Russia once again haunts Europe — and the world. 

Ariel Cohen is a senior research fellow in Russian and Eurasian studies and international energy policy at The Heritage Foundation. 

Read the original story here. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Siege - A Poem By Ahmad Faraz Against The Dictatorship Of Zia Ul Haq

Related Posts: 1.  Did Muhammad Ali Jinnah Want Pakistan To Be A Theocracy Or A Secular State? 2. The Relationship Between Khadim & Makhdoom In Pakistan 3. Battle for God; Battleground Pakistan - a time has finally come to call a spade a spade 4. Pakistan - Facing Contradictory Strategic Choices In An Uncertain Region 5. Pakistan, Islamic Terror & General Zia-Ul-Haq 6. Why Pakistan Army Must Allow The Democracy To Flourish In Pakistan & Why Pakistanis Must Give Democracy A Chance? 7. A new social contract in Pakistan between the Pakistani Federation and its components 8. Birth of Bangladesh / Secession of East Pakistan & The Sins of Our Fathers 9. Pakistan Army Must Not Intervene In The Current Crisis - Who To Blame For the Present Crisis in Pakistan ? 10. Balochistan - Troubles Of A Demographic Nature

India: The Terrorists Within

A day after major Indian cities were placed on high alert following blasts in the IT city of Bangalore, as many as 17 blasts ripped through Ahmedabad, capital of the affluent western Indian state of Gujarat . Some 30 people were killed, some at hospitals where bombs were timed to go off when the injured from other blasts were being brought in. (Later, in Surat, a center for the world's diamond industry, a bomb was defused near a hospital and two cars packed with explosives were found in in the city's outskirts.) Investigators pointed fingers at the usual Islamist suspects: Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), Bangladesh- based Harkat-ul Jihadi Islami (HUJI) and the indigenous Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). But even as the police searched for clues, the Ahmedabad attacks were owned up by a group calling itself the " Indian Mujahideen. " Several TV news stations received an email five minutes before the first blasts in Ahmedabad. The message repo

Mir Chakar Khan Rind - A Warrior Hero Of Baluchistan & Punjab Provinces of Pakistan

By Sikander Hayat The areas comprising the state of Pakistan have a rich history and are steeped in the traditions of martial kind. Tribes which are the foundation stone of Pakistan come from all ethnic groups of Pakistan either they be Sindhi, Balochi, Pathan or Punjabi. One of these men of war & honour were Mir Chakar Khan Rind. He is probably the most famous leader coming out of Baloch ethnic group of Pakistan. Mir Chakar Khan Rind or Chakar-i-Azam (1468 – 1565 ) was a Baloch king and ruler of Satghara in (Southern Pakistani Punjab) in the 15th century. He is considered a folk hero of the Baloch people and an important figure in the Baloch epic Hani and Sheh Mureed. Mir Chakar lived in Sibi in the hills of Balochistan and became the head of Rind tribe at the age of 18 after the death of his father Mir Shahak Khan. Mir Chakar's kingdom was short lived because of a civil war between the Lashari and Rind tribes of Balochistan. Mir Chakar and Mir Gwaharam Khan Lashari, hea