Another one gone

Last October I wrote about a meeting I attended at which a very courageous Russian (well, half Chechnyan) journalist and human rights activist, a friend of the late Anna Politkovskaya, spoke. While I was not over-impressed by the organizers of the meeting, Raw in War (Reach All Women in War) and, indeed, had a somewhat tart exchange of views with Mariana Katzarova of that outfit, I thought Natalya Estemirova was one of the most courageous and inspiring people I had come across for a long time.

Well, she no longer is. This morning Ms Estemirova was kidnapped from her home in Grozny and a few hours later her bullet-riddled body was found in neighbouring Ingushetia. President Medvedev has declared himself to be outraged and promised a high-level enquiry. Yeah, right. Like the high-level enquiry into Anna Politkovskaya's murder or Stanislav Merkelov's murder or, even, Galina Starovoitova's murder. Indeed, the many other murders, beatings, kidnappings and tortures of journalists, investigators and human rights activists in Russia.

It would appear that Ms Estemirova was collecting information for the Russian organization Memorial, that tries to establish the truth about Soviet crimes of the past as well as the more recent ones, about the activity of the government-backed militias in Chechnya and the surrounding republics. It is reasonable to assume that her murder was carried out by one of these militias though the involvement of Russian troops is not to be excluded.

RIP, Natalya Estemirova, a brave and irreplaceable lady.

COMMENT THREAD

Not altogether surprising

The trial of three men accused of being involved in the murder of the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya has come to an end. All three have been acquitted by the military court in a move that is somewhat embarrassing to the Russian authorities.

The man who is supposed to have done the actual killing, Rustam Makhmudov, was not on trial as he is supposed to be hiding somewhere in Western Europe. Neither was anybody who was accused of organizing or commissioning the killing.

Makhmudov's two brothers, Dzhabrail and Ibragim, were accused of involvement and found not guilty to their and their supporers' understandably delight. Others found not guilty were former police officer Sergei Khadzhikurbanov and former FSB officer Pavel Ryaguzov who had been up on an extortion charge related to the case.

The prosecutors intend to appeal but it is hard to see what that will achieve, as the evidence of involvement seems to be quite weak and no principal has been arrested or charged.

According to an understandably more detailed report on the BBC Russian Service, Politkovskaya's family and colleagues on the Novaya Gazeta, another of whose journalists was murdered last month are certain that those acquitted today did have some involvement in the murder but nobody is too optimistic that the case will ever be solved.

It might be a good idea to remind our own hacks of this and other cases of Russian journalists being killed, attacked, imprisoned, beaten up or having their homes trashed whenever they complain about their difficulties.

COMMENT THREAD

"Profitability was just around the corner"

Or so the unfortunate American taxpayer was told by the ethanol industry and Congress that was happily shelling (if I may use that expression) said taxpayer's money. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out in a recent article - it hit the European edition today so I had to go scurrying through the website - the ethanol industry has been another victim of falling oil prices, together with the bubble economies, of Russia, Iran, Venezuela and the Dubai property market. (Actually, the last of these may survive if Dubai continues to diversify. Then again, it may not.)

The commodity bust has clobbered corn ethanol, whose energy inefficiencies require high oil prices to be competitive. The price of ethanol at the pump has fallen nearly in half in recent months to $1.60 from $2.90 per gallon due to lower commodity prices, and that lower price now barely covers production costs even after accounting for federal subsidies. Three major producers are in or near bankruptcy, including giant VeraSun Energy.

The answer is, of course, to ask for some more of that tax money as there is no way on earth that the ethanol industry in the United States can survive, never mind become profitable, without influx of subsidies.

Sadly, the WSJ concludes that more subsidy will probably be provided:

Ethanol may never be profitable in the real world, but in Washington it's alucrative business that provides jobs and votes. Like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, ethanol is a business created by Congress that now has to be bailed out to save Congress from embarrassment.

Meanwhile another article in today's newspaper deals with the sorry plight of the oil rogues: Hugo, Mahmoud and Vladimir. Numerous postings on this blog dealt with the problem of Russia. In most of them we pointed out that Russia's supposed newly acquired power was worth nothing. Economically the country was not developing the way it should and in foreign affairs it could bully but achieve very little. Even tiny Estonia stuck its tongue out at mighty big brother.

With the fall of the price of oil to around $40 a barrel and a severe economic crisis (though the word is not mentioned) gripping the country, some of the big media commentators are catching up with us. Look out for trouble in the early spring, the traditional time for that in Russia.

It is, however, Iran that is being eyed uneasily by the world because of the events in Gaza. Hamas is a client organization and needs Iranian support, both physically and emotionally. Who else is going to scream about destroying Israel? Mind you, the Iranians may provide arms and ammunition but when they talk about self-sacrifice, they mean Palestinian self-sacrifice.

How long will they be able to support Hamas and Hezbollah as well as control internal problems with oil prices staying low?

Russia wins another victory

On Friday morning I bought three newspapers at my local newsagent (no, I don't keep them in business, the various lottery and other ticket buyers do): the Daily Telegraph, the International Herald Tribune and the Wall Street Journal Europe. (Yes, I do recycle those newspapers when I have finished reading them – I have two cats.)

Then I looked at the headlines of one of the most important stories. Our own Daily Telegraph said in the Business section, which is the only part that is worth reading: "BP buries hatchet with Russians". Hmm, I thought, I wonder if the Russians have also buried the hatchet and in whose skull.

The Trib was a little more cautious: "BP reaches a truce in its Russian oil battle". [This article seems to have vanished into cyberspace but there are others out there.] Slim hope of hatchets being buried or peace pipes being smoked.

The Wall Street Journal Europe was the most sceptical and most informative of all: "BP keeps TNK-BP stakes but Russians gain clout". [The article is available to subscribers only.] There is a trick to being able to sum up your story in a headline and there is also a trick to understanding what happens in the world. I think it may be called journalism but I am no longer certain.

Well, now the story about TNK-BP, which we have written about before, has taken another turn and not for the better as far as BP is concerned. Although they have managed to keep 50 per cent of the joint venture, the WSJE maintains that the "deal clearly gives the Russian shareholder more clout". According to Deputy Prime Minister, Igor Sechin, this is "a positive signal for the Russian market".

In the deal, BP agreed to many of the terms set by its partners, a group of Soviet-born billionaires [an unfair comment since all Russian adults are Soviet-born but the hit is palpable] led by Mikhail Fridman of Alfa Group, Lev Blavatnik of Access Industries and Vikotr Vekselber of Renova, collectively known as AAR.

Their main demands, the removal of BP-nominated Chief Executive Robert Dudley, who is to leave by Dec. 1 under the deal, and consideration of an initial public offering of TNK-BP shares, now expected around 2010. BP won few, if any, concession in return, according to people close to the company. BP gave up its demand for the removal from top management jobs of Mr Vekselberg and another Russian shareholder, German Khan, both of whom BP and Mr Dudley accused of insubordination and acting against the interests of TNK-BP. AAR denied those accusations.

The Trib points out that BP has been allowed to retain "access to the large oil fields in Siberia that are one of the company’s most valuable assets". Of course, nobody quite knows how long that situation will last but, at present, the deal is presented as being very helpful to Western investors, as Mr Sechin pointed out. After all, BP's assets were not nationalized through a forced sale to a state company. Again, nobody can predict whether that will not happen some time in the near future.

At present, the Kremlin and its various proxies have had to deal with "slide in the Russian stock market and in investor confidence", consequent on the invasion of Georgia.

Past experience suggests that some investors will swallow any amount of punishment and will ignore all warnings in the hopes of at least some small profits to be made in the Russian energy sector (there not being a great deal else, since the arms manufacturing is not going to be opened up to Western investors).

The Telegraph said:

Meanwhile, fears about Russia’s conflict with Georgia have taken their toll, forcing the Russian central bank yesterday [Thursday] to support the rouble. Currency dealers said the central bank had sold up to $4bn (£2.3bn) in reserves in an attempt to halt the fall of the rouble, after foreign investors pulled capital from the country. The chairman of the central bank, Sergei Ignatyev, was reported as saying about $5bn left Russia last month. Analysts believe the real figure is much higher.

Also on Friday Kommersant was reporting that the Russian stock index was starting to move upwards but the road will be difficult. Other accounts were painting a much gloomier picture. The TNK-BP deal was needed by the Kremlin but whether its effect will be all that they hope for remains to be seen.

In the Comments session the Telegraph was sanguine though admonitory:

But for all AAR's hard-nosed manoeuvring, Hayward has managed to keep a large amount of influence over selection of a new chief executive. But even more crucially, in the face of a Russian state whose president's attitude to diplomacy is "Cold War? Bring it on", Hayward has retained ownership of its asset. No mean feat.

But it's also been a warning. BP can never again be so naive in dealing with Russia. It's had to make concessions and been pushed on to the back foot. It should have acted sooner to protect its interests while its counterparts were weaker.

Other western companies should learn from its mistakes. You need to be as much of a street fighter as a statesman to succeed in the former Soviet Union. It's all very well having had lawyers and injunctions at the ready to freeze assets of its Russian partners but it should never have come to that.

The Russians, however, have had to swallow another hard lesson, which is that the West's open capital markets and the institutions that populate them will turn their backs if certain rules of engagement are ignored. A big investment bank will probably value a long-term relationship with a BP over what could be a short, risky and potentially dangerous liaison with a belligerent Russia. Oh, and never, ever sign a 50:50 joint venture.

We suspect that BP will continue to behave with exemplary naiveté right up to the moment they are marched out of Russia completely. For the moment, it is a Russian victory but, as ever, with heavier losses for the country than is necessary. Not that the leadership cares.

Two articles from over the Pond

Though the American media and blogosphere on the left seems to be taken up with dishing dirt - some relevant, most not so - about Sarah Barracuda, with the occasional irruption of fingernail-gnawing comments of what an utterly bad choice she was and how this will give the Dems the election, other matters do turn up as well, though mostly on the other side of the spectrum.

Oh, before I leave the subject of Governor Palin, here is an interesting reading of the situation by the highly regarded "maverick" blogger Spengler.

On to what really matters and that is what to do about Russia (and if there is one politician who knows about that country, it is the Governor of Alaska). John O'Sullivan produces a jeu d'esprit in the New York Post in which he envisages that famous 3 a.m. phone call for President Obama but as he says the situation would be much the same for President McCain, though he is unlikely to be quite so wimpish. Also, I don't think President Obama will make Hillary Clinton his Secretary of State. But as to what the Europeans might do if there is another crisis, the description is fairly accurate.

"Maybe the Germans can lean on them," mused the president, remembering his warm reception in Berlin.

"Germany won't agree to using force without a UN resolution. It's a constitutional thing with them," chimed in the secretary of state.

"I'm not talking force, Hillary," replied the president. "That's Bush-think. No, we have to respond with diplomacy and, as a last resort, sanctions."

"Maybe the Germans can impose oil and gas sanctions on Russia," said Mrs. Clinton sweetly. "Sit in the dark and warm themselves by burning the money they've saved until the Kremlin crumbles."

"Well, there's a united Europe today," replied the president, brightening. "Sanctions by the whole European Union would worry the Russians. Aren't they a possibility?"

"We'll know for sure in two weeks, sir, when the European Summit meets to discuss the crisis. But the signs aren't good. Poland and the Baltic states want a strong response, but they lack the clout of Germany and France. I'd say a moderately worded rebuke to Moscow is the best we can hope for."

Mr O'Sullivan's conclusion is entirely predictable and is obviously correct, since it is completely in line with what this blog has been saying for some time.

Multilateral forces can work only if there is a clear agreement of what the purpose is and who provides those forces. The European Union, on the other hand, without managing to provide an alternative by way of power, soft or hard, has an entirely negative effect on Western ability to deal with crises:

If the next US president wants effective multilateralism, he must re-establish NATO as the sole supplier of European security. Otherwise, when the phone rings, he'll have one rival to call instead of 25 allies.

There is, presumably, the possibility of re-creating NATO in a completely different form, which would leave out a number of West European countries.

One of the editorials in today's Wall Street Journal is also on the EU's inability to deal with the situation created by President Medvedev's refusal to live up to any of the agreements, supposedly sealed, signed and delviered by President Sarkozy, whose country holds the rotating presidency.

"Stop! Or we'll say stop again!" just about sums up the outcome of Monday's grand summit, whether it is the comedian Robin Williams's line or not.

We are glad to see that the newspaper is not falling for Sarkozy's bully tactics with which he tries to masquerade his own incompetence:

Mr. Sarkozy also insisted that his efforts to reach a cease-fire had borne fruit. The Georgians might disagree. Russia has used the agreement's vague language to justify a continued presence in Georgia far beyond the original conflict zone. The cease-fire called for international talks about the separatist regions, but that didn't stop Mr. Medvedev from recognizing their independence.

The most cynical comment of the day was Mr. Sarkozy's attempt to use the conflict to bully the Irish over their rejection of the EU's Lisbon Treaty in June. "This crisis has shown that Europe needs to have strong and stable institutions" like those it would have gotten under Lisbon, Mr. Sarkozy said.

No, what Europe needs is political will. Rather than scolding Irish voters, Mr. Sarkozy would do better to name and shame those member states whose desire to curry favor with Moscow keeps the EU from taking a firmer stand.

The one problem is that the Wall Street Journal still considers that Europe and the European Union are one and the same, thus assuming that "Europe" can have such a thing as political will.

The wise and all-seeing leader

The late unlamented (by most people) Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin was during his lifetime often describedthe world's greatest leader as well as being completely omniscient. Every now and then he would leave the cares of state and his never-ceasing watch over the people behind and would unbend his mind to put scientists or linguists or agricultural experts right about whatever it was they were wrong about. Woe betide anyone who ignored the great sage's guidance.

Even Stalin was not quite as hands-on as the former President, now Prime Minister, Putin appears to be. They do seem to have one thing in common – an ability to get the western media all excited by their activity. The Russian media has little choice.

The story that has convulsed the MSM a couple of days ago was that of Vladimir Putin and the Siberian tiger. I need not spend too much time on the actual story as it was written up everywhere but the pictures are worth looking at and one or two questions do arise.

The account in the Sydney Morning Herald is as good as any other.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has tried to boost his macho image by shooting tranquilisers at a Siberian tiger.

Putin, dressed in combat fatigues, was with a team of wildlife researchers in the Ussuri reserve in Russia's far east when the tiger escaped its harness and headed towards a television crew.

Armed with a tranquiliser gun, Putin shot at the tiger, which soon slumped to the ground.

Amazing. There was nobody better qualified there to deal with the escaped tiger either before or after it had been shot with a tranquilizer gun? I mean, do they all need careful instructions on how to deal with the problem? That is certainly the impression one gets from the second photograph where the omniscient one appears to be instructing someone else on the best way to deal with the stunned tigress.

Apparently, the tranquilizer worked immediately. Sheesh! That's superior Russian technology for you. How long does something like that take normally? About 20 minutes, I have been told.

The Aussies seem a little sceptical as one reads the story.

It seems that not a summer goes by without some macho image of the former President, now Prime Minister appearing in the media. In this he has long outstripped Stalin and his henchmen as well as his successors who usually preferred to appear in jolly poses, perhaps post-hunting but with children and happy friends and family members. Our Vlad does not seem to like that. When did we last see him with his family, just enjoying himself, not throwing judo opponents over his shoulder or riding bare-chested with a knife stuck in his belt or brandishing a tranquilizer gun?

Why on earth was he wearing combat fatigues anyway? Is this all part of the message he is trying to convey to the Russian people: the country is constantly at war with its neighbours, all of whom are her enemies and are merely thinking of invading as soon as possible?

Meanwhile, there is trouble in Ingushetiya. (That's next door to Chechnya in north Caucasus.)

The owner of the embattled opposition web site Ingushetiya.ru was killed Sunday after being detained by police, and his supporters promised massive protests that could lead to a sharp escalation in violence in the restive region.

Magomed Yevloyev, a prominent opposition member and staunch critic of Ingush President Murat Zyazikov, was detained in Ingushetia's main city of Nazran as he stepped off a plane from Moscow, his lawyer and friend Kaloi Akhilgov said by telephone.

The police maintain it was an accident that happened while Yevloyev tried to wrestle an assault rifle away from a police officer in the police car. In the process he was accidentally shot in the head. I am a little surprised they did not go for the suicide explanation.

Other people give different accounts:

Ingush opposition activist Magomed Khazbiyev said Yevloyev was found lying near a Nazran hospital with a bullet in his temple, Interfax reported.

He died during an operation at the hospital, said Vladimir Markin, a spokesman for the Investigative Committee in the Prosecutor General's Office. The Investigative Committee has opened an investigation into the death that might lead to charges being filed against the local police, Markin said, Interfax reported.

As they say, you pays your money and you takes your choice.

The protest that had started during Mr Yevloyev's funeral was broken up by baton-wielding police though the police are denying that as well.

President Medvedev, meanwhile, possibly to show that he is as tough as his predecessor, now Prime Minister, has announced that President Saakashvili is a "political corpse" and should, presumably, be given a decent burial. Whatever one may think of President Saakashvili and his ability to withstand Russian provocation, the fact remains that he was elected by the people of Georgia. Therefore, despite the many Western comments about him being the wrong person in that position because the Kremlin does not like it, the fact remains that Georgia is no longer a Russian colony.

Needless to say, the whole mess is America's fault (but President Prime Minister Putin will solve it all with his tranquilizer gun) and there was praise for the European Union, which refused to impose sanctions, though did suspend talks on a strategic pact until Russia withdraws her troops from Georgia. Apparently there have been suggestions that those troops will be withdrawn. We have, I believe, been here before.

The BBC Russian Service reports that Georgia has broken off diplomatic relations with Russia and employees of the Russian embassy will be leaving Tbilisi. There is also a brief report that Vice-President Cheney is about to visit Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine.

Turkey has been complaining that there are delays for its goods at Russian border crossings, a move that is seen as a "punishment" because the country has dared to allow "US warships carrying aid to Georgia to pass through the Turkish straits, which connect the Mediterranean to the Black Sea" and is thinking about retaliatory gestures.

Not so, said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who is visiting Istanbul.

This is not an action directed against Turkey; Turkey is not being singled out. There can be no politics involved in trade.

Of course not. And the best person to subdue an escaped tigress is a country's President Prime Minister.

What do they hope to achieve?

In Wednesday's Wall Street Journal Bret Stephens's column argued something we have been saying on this blog for a long time: Russia’s flaying about and bullying neighbouring smaller and weaker countries are not a sign of strength, no matter what most of the media repeats ad nauseam; it is a sign of weakness.

Putin, supposedly the strong man of Russia and of the whole Eurasian sphere, has demonstrated his and his government's weakness on a number of occasions, in the international and, more importantly, the domestic arena.

Continued on EU Referendum 2.

Last year was different

Last year I wrote about the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia under the title "Then again, some things have changed". The Russian military were blustering but it looked like they could do nothing about an actual invasion of any East European country and might, therefore, be too smart to try.

This year, the fortieth anniversary was marked early, thanks to our friends in the Russian military who have decided to take their August holiday in Georgia, an independent democracy on their border. Have things changed back to their normal Russian/Soviet state of affairs?

In some ways yes. Unable to control its neighbours, Russia like a schoolyard bully, prefers to hit out, particularly if that neighbour is smaller and weaker. But is it in a position to sustain a lengthy military occupation and extend it to the other recalcitrant neighbours? That I think is more questionable. Russia is relying on the supineness of the West that will simply acknowledge an updated version of the "Brezhnev doctrine," now called the Putin doctrine. But the underpinning of strength is not there. This is Russia's tragedy far more than anybody else's even if at the moment it is hard to feel sympathetic.

Nope we still can't solve it

It seems incredible but President Sarkozy still seems to think that he has some kind of a role to play in the crisis in the Caucasus. He keeps running around, accepting Russian peace offers and cease-fire deals and then finding that there is not the slightest intention on the Russian side of fulfilling the obligations that they themselves propose. I must say, it is not entirely clear why the Russians keep playing this game unless, as some analysts have been suggesting, there are splits among the various leaders, military and civilian and, above all, between former President, now Prime Minister, Putin and his teddy bear.

Reuters entitles the news item "Russia starts Georgia pullout" but this is a little misleading. Russia is not starting anything of the kind; she is merely promising to do so.

Russian troops will pull back from Georgia's heartland by the end of this week, the Kremlin said on Tuesday, but NATO said it was freezing contacts with Moscow until all Russian forces were out of the country.

This reminds one of the very popular Russian word, which has flummoxed many a Western businessman: сейчас (seychas). Its direct meaning is this minute (or this hour if you wish to be pedantic) but, in actual fact, it conveys a sense of urgency that is just inferior to the Spanish mañana. Yes, yes, yes, we're going, we're going.

So the soft power of the EU has failed and President Sarkozy's readiness to go along with whatever President Medvedev told him has achieved nothing. To be fair, as Joel J. Sparayregen has pointed out on American Thinker, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a Russian expert in her academic days, has faltered at first as well. Unlike President Sarkozy, she has acknowledged it and American demands have become tougher as has NATO's stance, though there is no mention of Georgia becoming a member in the near future. On the other hand, if the near future includes Russian troops on Georgian soil, that might be quite a wise precaution.

The near and mid-term future will, it seems, include missiles positioned in South Ossetia and, possibly, Abkhazia, pointing at Georgia, in order to protect the Russian citizens of those two regions. Since they are now unlikely to be anything but part of Russia, the protections seems excessive.

Almost certainly Russia will institute one of her economic blockades of Georgia. After all, we cannot have the latter being economically successful as that would humiliate Russia.

The latest prediction is that Russian forces will pull back to prearranged positions by August 22, just about the fortieth anniversary of the invasion of Czechoslovakia, but this will not mean simply going back to Russia and South Ossetia but staying in the "buffer zone", that is 14 kilometres beyond the border inside Georgia itself. It would appear that the French negotiators thought this was perfectly reasonable. Then again, did they have an option if nobody was prepared to use stronger methods? G8? Well, no, G7, I think.

CNN entitles its analysis rather whimsically “NATO grapples with angry bear”. In itself, the analysis tells us nothing new. America, Britain, most of the former Soviet colonies and, one assumes, Denmark and Canada are calling for tougher measures; France, Germany and Italy are cowering and chattering about keeping channels open. What that means is anybody’s guess. After all, nobody is suggesting never talking to Russia again.

It is unfortunate that CNN goes along with the analysis that Russia and her self-appointed supporters have managed to feed into the public discourse:

But western ministers, it seems, have only just taken aboard how angry a resurgent Russia, traditionally fearful of encirclement, has been about the U.S. missile defense plan with installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, about the steady eastward march of NATO and the EU, and about the West's ready endorsement of Kosovo's breakaway from Russia's allies in Serbia.

Largely this is tosh. The missile defence plan is no threat to Russia and the former Soviet colonies became members of NATO because they were afraid of the bear. In other words, they are not surprised by the latest developments because they have always expected something like this.

There has never been the slightest indication that Russia cared much about Serbia as the Serbs have vociferously complained about and Kosovo is of little importance to them. The plan to use South Ossetia to threaten and invade Georgia has been maturing for, at least, five years when those Russian passports were first handed out.

Somehow, the myth of the resurgent, angry and humiliated Russia seems to have taken hold. I am in the process of writing a long posting on the subject so shall hold my fire till then but I may add that if Russia is afraid of encirclement then the country she is most fearful of is China.

When it comes to invasion from the east, Monty’s saying of the three rules of war do not apply. Mostly, these have been successful and Russia knows it. A little reported recent development was a border agreement signed between the two countries on July 21, which is returning 174 sq km of territory to China.

The areas to be returned - the Yinlong Island (Tarabarov Island) and half of the Heixiazi Island (Bolshoi Ussuriysky Island) - are territories the former Soviet Union occupied during a 1929 border skirmish.

They are located at the confluence of the Heilongjiang and Wusulijiang rivers that serve as a natural border between the two countries.

Following years of negotiations, the two sides signed an agreement for the return of the areas in October 2004 when Vladimir Putin, then Russian President visited Beijing.

After that, the two neighbors spent three years of negotiations on delineation.

Curiously enough, this was not much reported in Russia, either.

The Eurasian Daily Monitor, which has been following the growing crisis in Georgia long before most of the Western media and politicians realized there was anything to follow (as it happens we have written about it a few times ourselves, here for instance) gives a more detailed analysis of the non-withdrawal and the rings President Medvedev has been running round President Sarkozy.

COMMENT THREAD

Unintended consequences

On this blog we have always maintained that former President, now Prime Minister, Putin and his teddy bear (mishka), President Medvedev tend to be less than adroit when it comes to foreign adventures, whether attempts to bully and blackmail or, as has now happened, actual military invasion (and no, I do not mean South Ossetia, which has been under Russian occupation for something like ten years).

Chancellor Merkel, who led the nay-sayers during the last NATO Summit in Sofia, and thus may be said to have helped to precipitate the crisis in the Caucasus, has now changed her mind. She is reported by AP as saying that Georgia is strongly on track to becoming a member of NATO, which is not entirely logical but there you are.

Her comments, as reported by AP are not precisely accurate. It is not an EU ceasefire we are talking about but a Russian one that they keep offering but never quite keeping to. The EU has not precisely covered itself with glory. Also, the state of the Georgian military is not entirely clear. There are several opinions, some maintaining that the Russians did not have a totally easy ride.

Meanwhile, thanks to Glenn Reynolds on Instapundit, we learn that

Ukraine has agreed to take part in a missile defence system designed by the United States to protect Western countries. The government in Kiev defended its decision for military co-operation with the West, saying Russia cancelled a bilateral treaty with Ukraine earlier this year.

No doubt, this will be interpreted by all the Kremlin-lovers, since they cannot be described as Russia-lovers, as a "humilation" for Russia.

Whatever one calls it, this is not precisely what Mr Putin had intended, one assumes. Some things have changed in the last forty years. Time for Russia's rulers to understand that.

COMMENT THREAD

Concentrates the mind

I do not like drawing inexact historical parallels but the news that Poland and the USA will shortly sign (if, indeed, have not already done so, as the BBC Russian Service says) that agreement for setting up a defence shield made me smile (as well as I can do so after a very painful session in the dentist's chair).

The plan would see the US base 10 missile interceptors in Poland in exchange for help strengthening Polish defences, said PM Donald Tusk.

Of course, the parallels with 1938/9 are not really that. It was the Poles who were dragging their feet this time but I imagine the argument about strengthening Polish defences came to the fore in those negotiations.

So what now?

The news is that Russia has ceased its military action. Or has announced that she has done so, though there are still reports of fighting. It is not quite clear what that means, since before doing so, its forces penetrated far into Georgian territory. What will they demand in return for taking them out and, indeed, will they take them out?

The whole subject of South Ossetian independence has disappeared into a memory hole. Yesterday I took part in a discussion on the BBC Russian Service, together with Ariel Cohen of the Heritage Foundation and a Russian political analyst and former member of the Duma (whose name I managed not to catch, which is really annoying but had something to do with me having to adjust my earphones).

The latter very calmly informed us all that there was no question of going back to status quo ante because only Russian troops (I don’t think he bothered with the words peacekeepers or peacemakers) could guarantee the two break-away republics’ security and they were staying. Under no circumstances would international peacekeepers be allowed in.

Nor did he argue when I made the point that this was not about South Ossetian independence. Of course, not. Only those who are wilfully blind can say so.

Indeed, the gentleman in question remained very calm and full of certainty throughout the discussion, losing his temper only when I started enumerating the various ways in which the West can respond without any military intervention. “And who are you going to buy gas from,” he asked me angrily. “Lots of people,” replied I airily. “Who are you going to sell it to if we don’t buy it? There are no pipelines to China.” This did not make him very happy.

While we are on the subject of what the West can do to prevent attacks on other countries (the idea that Russia will do no such thing now that it has taught Georgia a lesson can be believed only by people who also think that stars are God’s daisy chains), here is a posting on a blog that has recently come my way, which makes me look like a real ninny.

What we could not find out was Russia’s endgame. What is it they want? We still don’t know, though according to the BBC Russian Service website [it’s in Russian but I think there is a way of having the article translated] some experts are saying that Russia has achieved her aims. Others are more cautious and suggesting we should wait and see.

On the whole, waiting and seeing sounds like an excellent idea. Not least we should hear what it is Mr Putin or his teddy bear, Mr Medvedev are going to demand. Simply asserting that they have punished the aggressor and reasserted the security of the civilian population (something that Mr Putin cares about desperately) as well as of the peacemakers is not the end. There will be more demands.

Meanwhile President Saakashvili has announced to around 50,000 people in Tbilisi that Georgia is leaving the Commonwealth of Independent States, Russia’s post-Soviet attempt to control the break-away republics.

While the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline appears not to have been damaged (apart from the fire caused by an explosion in Turkey a few days before the hostilities in Georgia began) BP has prudently closed it down for the duration. When they will reopen it might well depend on the separate battle that is being waged for the control of the joint Anglo-Russian consortium TNK-BP.

We can but speculate why Russia has decided to end hostilities for the time being, while there is still fighting in Abkhazia. It may be that they do feel that they have taught Georgia a lesson and, in any case, they are in a good position to resume the teaching of that lesson if the Georgians refuse to kiss the rod.

It may be that the Georgian forces fought back with greater vigour than the Russians had expected and there was a sudden worry (which we have speculated on before) of another quagmire like Chechnya. It may be that the angry conversation between President Bush and former President, now Prime Minister, Putin included certain very specific threats possibly to do with ships in the Mediterranean.

As opposed to that last point Russia may well have reassured herself that the West will do nothing if she proceeds to reconquer the old Soviet colonies as Putin has always threatened to do and there is no need to do anything else for the moment.

I shall do a separate posting, possibly on the other blog about Russia, her so-called humiliation and the amazing lengths to which her supporters in the West will go to. For the moment, let me just point out that if there has been any humiliation it was that of President Medvedev. He may say that he has decided to end the hostilities and he may look solemn during his meeting with President Sarkozy as the Reuters picture above shows but the whole world has been watching and we know who has been in charge all the time.

As the International Herald Tribune wrote today:

In recent days, Putin has appeared on television with his sleeves rolled up, mingling with refugees on the border with South Ossetia — the very picture of a man of action.

By contrast, Medvedev is shown sitting at his desk in Moscow, giving ceremonial orders to the minister of defense.

"All his liberal speeches which he made in Berlin and elsewhere are forgotten," Rahr, who serves on the German Council on Foreign Relations, said of the new president. "He is playing the game which is designed by Putin."

Yulia L. Latynina, a frequent critic of Putin's government, noted with amusement that on the eve of the conflict in Georgia, when President George W. Bush and Putin were deep in conversation in Beijing at the start of the Olympics, Medvedev was taking a cruise on the Volga River.

"Now he can cruise the Volga for all the remaining years, or can go right to the Bahamas," she wrote in Daily Magazine, a Russian Web site. "I must admit that for the first time in my life I felt admiration for the skill with which Vladimir Putin maintains his power."

What, one cannot help wondering, will happen if the worm or the teddy bear turns?

UPDATE: The announcements were all premature and wait and see remains a good policy. It seems that the Russians are shelling Gori, which is, indeed, Stalin's birth place. More to the point, it is a long way from the disputed territory, some days after the Georgians asked for a cease-fire and a day or so after President Saakashvile agreed to the European plan for negotiations. Of course, it could be that President Medvedev's announcements are not worth the paper they are described on.

It's the same old story

If anyone out there really believed that Russia's attack was about South Ossetia or Kosovo, do get in touch with me. I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Russia is sweeping into Georgia proper, despite pleas for a cease-fire, and we hear the same question as many heard before: where are our friends?

Get used to it - if Russia bullies anyone, the West keeps schtumm. Georgia will get no help any more than the Balts did, or Poland, or Hungary or Czechoslovakia. We shall see no large demonstrations against blood for oil (and believe me, oil comes into it). The UN will not condemn or do anything. How can it, with Russia on the Security Council?

Something may come out of the US's unreserved condemnation of the aggression (oh, by the way, did the UN approve this and where does international law stand on the Russian attack on Georgia?), which was supported by Senator McCain. Senator Obama waffled about the UN and the international community. This is just to warn everyone.

Can we, at least, offer real help to those who are the next on that list, Ukraine and the Baltic states?

As I look through my various postings and articles about Russia I feel that, once again, I have played the part of Cassandra. Appeasement is never a good idea, particularly if the one you are appeasing is strong only through the folly of its opponents. Yes, Russia looks to her interests and makes no secret of it, though nothing good for the country or its people will come from it getting bogged down in another war in the Caucasus. Nothing good came from the Soviet empire and this will be no different. But the Kremlin cares little as we can see from the little trolls that have cropped up on all the sites and forums (even Facebook, I am told).

The question is, however, is it not time we all looked to our interests. Do we even know what they are?

COMMENT THREAD

Miffed is what I am

The American blogosphere has been inundated by comments from Russian contributors who call themselves Anton, Sergey, Ivan, Russian, Rossiyanin or plain Anonymous. To be fair, they appear only on blogs that are writing about the war in the Caucasus (the latest war in the Caucasus as the one in Chechnya remains inadequately resolved).

None of them seem to know much English. They do not simply make ordinary Russian mistakes of occasionally picking the wrong word or leaving out articles (there are none in Slavonic languages so it is easy to get it wrong). No, these Sergeys and Antons seem to have a very rudimentary knowledge of English so they are clearly not among those who have been diligently and at some risk to themselves scanning English-language blogs.

They have checked through Google, found the blogs that are covering the war and have proceeded to take part in the discussion though only after a fashion. What they do is reproduce in that rudimentary English, laboriously translated from Russian, the latest line in Kremlin propaganda.

Because they do not actually know enough of either what is being said or shown in the West or what other commenters are saying (that rudimentary knowledge) they cannot get involved in any discussion. When there is a response they repeat the propaganda, still badly translated but in slightly different words.

This, I must say, is pathetic and falls well short of the high level of propaganda I expect from the Comintern's heirs. For all of that, I am more than a little miffed. I have been blogging on the subject on EUReferendum and on the BrugesGroupBlog but have had no Sergeys or Antons or, even, Ivans producing their illiterate version of the Kremlin point of view. Why not?

Do these people not take us seriously? Do they, perhaps, not take the British blogosphere seriously enough to send their rather immature shock-troops to attack us? This is outrageous.

UPDATE: Hurrah, we've acquired one of them as well on my colleague's thread. Phew what a relief.

No news is not good news

Apart from the Beijing Olympics, where the Russians seem to have won a silver medal for some kind of shooting (there's a surprise), there is only the Caucasus to write about. Maybe that silver medal will keep the Russians happy for a while.

So here is a brief summary of what I have gleaned from various sources, mostly in Russian. The number of casualties are under dispute. The Russians maintain 1,400 or 1,500; the Georgians disagree; the South Ossetians are busy being evacuated to North Ossetia, which is in Russia or being brought back. Some of the South Ossetian officers have come up with extraordinary and so far unsubstantiated tales of Georgian officers throwing handgrenades into basements where women and children are hiding out. Sounds a little like all those tales of "Jeningrad" but, I suppose, one cannot tell.

Mikheil Saakashvili has called for a cease-fire and has declared a military situation in Georgia itself. Russian jets have bombed Gori and other targets inside Georgia, well outside South Ossetia. Georgians maintaint that the Russians have been trying to bomb oil pipelines but missed.

Former President, now Prime Minister, Putin has gone to Vladikavkaz in North Ossetia to sort things out, presumably the way he has been sorting matters out in the other parts of the Caucasus. He has also claimed that Georgia's actions in South Ossetia amount to genocide.

President Medvedev has made furious statements, demanding that Georgia withdraw troops from South Ossetia, then demanding that Georgia withdraw troops from just outside South Ossetia. So far he has not demanded that Georgia withdraw troops from Georgia.

The UN Security Council has failed to agree on action. American and European officials have sped to Tbilisi to try to negotiate a cease-fire. I have put up more details on the BrugesGroupBlog but the situation remains murky.

However, for the benefit of some of our readers I shall try to define the arguments used by the present-day appeasers. They are surprisingly familiar. Here goes: Russia is being victimized by the nasty evil Western imperialists in the shape of Georgia becoming pro-Western, more or less democratic and, possibly, economically far more successful than Russia itself. Therefore, Russia has every right to assert her influence in the region and protect her interests. The West, on the other hand, has no right whatsoever to support its ally or to ensure that Russia does not control the entire flow of oil from the Caspian region. There, that sums it up.

I have been challenged by another blogger to come up with an answer to the question of what is to be done now. So far, I have managed three different versions but none satisfactory. Maybe tomorrow.

So human rights do not matter?

How often have we heard this from pompous businessmen, commentators, politicians and officials: well, of course, human rights matter but really there are far more important things in the world such as business relations, trade, the Olympics and other suchlike matters that make the world go round.

I have news for these people. Human rights, as I have said before, make a difference in matters economic. For one thing, a respect for human rights means (usually) a respect for the law and that, ladies and gentlemen of the business and political world, means respect for contracts.

The sad story of the TNK-BP conglomerate and the enforced departure of its CEO from Russia has been covered in the business sections of most newspapers. Today's Times and Daily Telegraph do a reasonable job.

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, Deputy Chairman of TNK-BP made stirring statements:

There is a legitimate way of bringing about change in a company - through negotiation and discussion. AAR's efforts to wrest control of the company through illegitimate means are damaging the company and, regrettably, Russia's reputation among international investors.

Anyone who cares about the security of international investment, and corporate governance should be concerned. This is not about British versus Russian interests as AAR has tried to portray it. It is about the actions of AAR and its affiliated executives and the resulting damage to the company and to Russia.

The trouble is that the sentence that springs to mind is "we told you so". The writing appeared on the wall when the Yukos affair played itself out, though British business looked the other way, muttering about trade links being more important than huffing and puffing about illegal destruction of a successful business and imprisonment of various people connected with it.

The writing intensified last year with the shenanigans over Shell and BP while the Russian state gathered more and more of the energy resources in its collective grubby hand, bullied partners and ... well, and what? It certainly did not invest those profits in further development or infrastructure.

It's the human rights, stupid.

Another return

Some readers may have noticed that I have been blogging lightly recently. The reason was preoccupation with other work. That is now finished and I can return to duties though the boss, as ever, managed to fill those gaps.

I shall not write about Obama's trip to Europe as I think I should follow neo-neocon's example and start weaning myself off the subject. Instead, here is one of my favourite subjects, the behaviour of that defender of the nation state, Russia, under its new President, who just happens to say exactly what the old President, now Prime Minister, said.

After the Czech Government signed an agreement on the placing of a radar tracking system in the country Russia voiced her displeasure (one wonders if it is fear of that displeasure that is making the Poles so hesitant - an interesting historic reversal, if true) by cutting down the amount of oil, agreed and contracted for, that would be allowed to flow.

Oil supplies dropped about 40 percent on July 9, the day after the Czech government signed the antimissile deal with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Prague, and have remained at that level since.

Never mind. Putin has stormed to the Czechs' rescue. Well, sort of. According to the article he has instructed Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin, who is in charge of energy policy, to make sure that all partners remain satisfied.

Apparently, there was a certain amount of discussion between the two as to why this rather regrettable situation might have arisen. Nothing to do with the anti-missile deal, which was not even mentioned.

The Czechs appear to have crossed their neighbour in another way as well:

The two then ruminated on the possible causes for the shortfall, according to the report. Putin said he agreed with Sechin's conclusion that "the immediate blame is not on Russian oil suppliers" but rather on unspecified offshore oil trading companies that deal in Russian oil.

Sechin noted that the Czech Republic had declined to sign a energy agreement proposed by the Russians last year.

Putin added that, as a result, the Czechs were purchasing oil "not directly from Russian producers, but through offshore companies."

Russian oil supplies should be back to the agreed levels by August but, it seems, that unlike Germany, the Czech Republic is looking round for alternative suppliers.

Incidentally, as far as I understand it, the much-heralded and much-trumpeted Obama visit will not take in any East European capital. I wonder why that is. Have his 300 foreign policy advisers not managed to tell him that Berlin is no longer the frontline? Ooops, I have failed at the first hurdle.

Happy Victory Day

Having spent several of my formative years in another part of Europe and having come to this country with my family, without, so far as I know, a democratic vote being taken on whether we should be taken in as political asylum seekers, I find it hard to take Europe Day seriously. May 9 is Den’ Pobedi, which, as our various Russian experts will know, means Victory Day.

Every year there is a military parade in the Red Square and this year’s was predicted to be a very grand one, in the style of the Soviet Union. Russia would once again show off her power, it was said.

A new president, new prime minister, enormous wealth and a tendency to stand up to everyone else in the world (even Iran, occasionally), that is the new Russia, that likes to belong to clubs but sees no reason why she should obey the rules.

There are a few problems with that analysis as we have mentioned before. Yes, there is a new president and a new prime minister, who happens to be the old president but that, in itself, proves nothing. The transference of power was peaceful but hardly free or democratic.

Russia’s wealth depends almost entirely on gas and oil and, as we have written before on a number of occasions, the production of those two raw materials is falling as there is no investment being made in further development. Nor there is any investment being made in the country’s infrastructure, which is slowly disintegrating. There are fewer good roads in that country now than there were ten years ago.

Which raises the question as to where all that wealth is going. We can but guess. Some has gone into a prompter payment of salaries and pensions, which in turn allowed more people to spend more money on badly needed consumer goods, many of which are imported. And, one presumes, a good deal of that wealth has gone into keeping the ruling class, the privilegentsia, happy or, at least, peaceful.

The parade seems to have been all that was predicted. I shall leave the discussion of toys to my colleague, if he feels like having a look, but, apart from the Soviet-style bombast in the numbers and noise, there seems to be little really new or really threatening. As we know, numbers produced for a parade are deceptive. Putin himself has made numerous comments about the lack of young men coming into the army and the need for the population to keep up with military requirements, whatever they may be.

As we have pointed out before, when marking a previous Victory Day, few people in Russia know much about what really happened during and after the Great Patriotic War. Thus it is easy to tell them that any doubt or scepticism expressed by various nasty Balts, East Europeans and the occasional westerner about some aspects of Soviet behaviour is all part and parcel of the world trying to do Russia down.

Little is known of the horrors that the Red Army had to contend with, not least because of Stalin’s order that there shall be no retreats, not even tactical ones and his statement that all those who surrender are traitors to the Motherland.

Nothing is known about the various reasons why Soviet POWs were kept under far worse conditions than anybody else (except Germans and others in the Soviet Union, and even there that was no worse than the conditions for other inmates of the Gulag). Needless to say, there is no knowledge of what was the truth behind the formation of General Vlasov’s army and why it was that 1 million Soviet citizens were in German uniform at the end of the war – an unheard of development in Russian history.

Some people might recall what happened to Soviet POWs when they returned or were forcibly handed back to the Motherland. I’ll tell you: they were speedily sent further east to the Gulag. (Come to think of it, we could do with a little discussion on that subject ourselves.)

After a century of horror, after almost two decades of collapse and uncertainty, the one thing the Russian people can celebrate without, they assume, any doubt is the victory over the Nazi hordes. And they do celebrate it.

We have seen excitement from the Western media like the New York Times, which tells us that

The parade was the first display of armor and nuclear-missile launchers on Red Square since 1990, and was followed by a flyover of 32 military planes, including strategic bombers.

Even a non-toy person like this author feels that a little more is required. A first display of armour, eh? Was it the same armour or slightly more up-to-date?

Associated Press gives a little more detail but the tealeaves are still hard to read:

Russia has nearly quadrupled its defense spending in recent years, aiming to resuscitate the military forces that deteriorated in the post-Soviet period.

Topol missiles, which have the capacity to carry nuclear warheads, were part of the display of more than 100 tanks, mobile missile units and armored vehicles that was aimed at underlining the military revival. But many of the heavy weapons shown were only slightly modernized versions of equipment developed decades ago.

Although the display was significantly smaller than in Soviet-era parades, the return of the tradition has raised concerns that Russia harbors aggressive ambitions.

It might be a good idea to look to the sphere where Russia has clearly shown that she harbours aggressive ambitions, and that is energy supply and the related bullying of her neighbours as well as countries like Germany, who appears to take on the Russian yoke with no complaining. Possibly the people of Germany have not yet realized what has been foisted on them by their leaders.

Der Spiegel talks of East Europeans feeling a little chilled by this display and foreign diplomats shaking their heads over “wrong signals” but also refers with some bemusement about Russia searching “for its future in the past”. Ironically enough, the Red Square is the epicentre of the consumerist Russia, which is being developed in response to demands from the ruling elite, its friends and relations.

Al Jazeera also goes along with the media’s reading of the situation, without going into very many details as to what was really trundled across Red Square:

Jonah Hull, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Moscow, said: "This [parade] caps a political change in Russia, with a new president and a new prime minister … and is a message as much to the world as to the Russian people, that as well as political stability Russia also has military clout."

Mr Hull seems to have grasped one very important point. Nobody really sees this somewhat ramshackle parade as far as the equipment is concerned as a sign or real military clout any more than any sensible person regards arrests of opposition members, crack-down on all critics and a control of media as a sign of political stability.

By and large, the hardware was not impressive:

For the 63rd anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany, there were not only new uniforms to marvel at on Red Square, but newly choreographed marches and a new president. Dmitry Medvedev, who has only been in office for two days, gazed statesman-like at the proceedings
from the grandstand.

The weapon systems on show, however, were old. A voice over a loudspeaker hailed the S-300 anti-missile system as the "best in the world." The SU-24 fighter jets, which flew over the Kremlin, have been in operation for 30 years and the strategic bomber, the Tu-160, was delivered to the air force for the first time in 1981.

So far, only a handful of Russia's newest fighter jets, the Su-34, have even been supplied to the air force. According to aviation expert Ruslan Puchow, "Many of the weapon systems which were on display are more often sold abroad than given to our army." That is why the respected business newspaper Vedomosti ran a story on the parade with the derisive headline "Parade for Export."

Comments from Washington were particularly sneering, if not entirely inaccurate. Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon spokesman, derided the Moscow military parade in advance: "If they wish to take out their old equipment and take it for a spin and check it out, they're more than welcome to do so."

Ouch.

It is true, as my colleague would undoubtedly point out that this performance will be cited by the military hierarchy in this country in their argument for more and shinier toys to be used in some putative conventional war at the expense of equipment needed now in the wars Britain is fighting at the moment.

The real audience, however, are the people of Russia. They are the ones who are meant to be impressed and a little frightened by this performance. They are the ones who are being reminded by the display of hardware, the noise and the shouting of the Soviet period and of the might of the state. They are the ones who are either elated or frightened but, in any case, overawed by the constant playing of the Russian national anthem, which just happens to have the same tune as the Soviet one with new words written by the same poet, Sergei Mikhalkov.

It is not Russia that is showing off her might but the Russian state showing off its power over the people of that country.

What next for Russia?

The new President, Dmitry Medvedev was sworn in yesterday in a ceremony that reminded everyone of the old czarist ones, though former President, now Prime Minister, Putin used the word "comrades" to elicit that well-known Russian roar in response.

The International Herald Tribune, which gives an excellent account of the ceremony, insists on adding what has become a journalistic meme that this ceremony is also a sign of "renewed Russian confidence". It is as if those satirical descriptions of how articles need to be written, with certain phrases already pre-entered, were actually true. Then again, maybe they are.

In fact, the best version of that satire I have ever read is not even in Evelyn Waugh's "Scoop", brilliant though that novel is, but in a Soviet novel, published in 1930, entitled "The Golden Calf", written by Il'ya Ilf and Yevgenii Petrov. Journalists, it seems, are the same, no matter what the political system is, though given the difference in risk, it seems rather odd that our own coddled scribes do not break out of the boundaries.

As we have said several times on this blog, there is little evidence that Russia's "renewed power" exists outside the media's imagination. Bullying, especially if it is largely unsuccessful, is not power. Of course, one cannot tell how things will go under the new President. Perhaps, real power, based on a developed economy, widely spread rise in living standards and a sensible foreign policy, will emerge.

The signs are not very propitious. It is generally assumed that a great deal of internal power will leave the Kremlin with Vladimir Putin and will take root in the White House, that is the Prime Minister's residence. (Very confusing, this, I know.)

The Eurasia Daily Monitor quotes several Russian political experts on the subject and they all sound rather cautious though they do agree that Putin will not only retain a great deal of power but will also claim a lot of it back from the "cabinets" of the Deputy Prime Ministers. His appointments will be interesting to watch.

Edward Lucas, the author of the excellent "The New Cold War", has, on a number of occasions, compared the Russian and the American presidential races. Apart from the freedom of the media, the fact that politicians do not get arrested or beaten up if they oppose the government, and demonstrations are not smashed up by the police there is the interesting difference that in the United States we have no idea who the next President is going to be but a reasonable idea about main political developments after the inauguration. In Russia, before the election, there could have been no doubt about the winner but nobody had then or has now any real idea of where the country will go from here.

In the meantime, let us note something quite interesting. President Medvedev has changed his style of speaking, walking and marching when taking the salute. In fact, he now does all these things exactly as ex-President Putin does. If it weren't so spooky, it would be quite funny.

Tomorrow all eyes will be on the Victory Day Parade in Red Square, which is promised to be as overwhelming as the Soviet ones used to be. We shall be watching with great interest on this blog.

Let me end this posting, however, on a historical note, that ties in quite well with my colleague's link to those interesting photos of the Obama rally (not!) and many other comments we have made in the past about press and media photos being manipulated. Spiegel has a fascinating account of how the iconic picture of the Russian soldier waving the Soviet flag over the Reichstag was created.

This includes the tale of the photographer, Yevgeny Khaldei, later in trouble during Stalin's second, virulently anti-semitic purge, scratching out from the negatives the evidence of the soldiers' wholesale looting in Berlin with a needle. Well, they had no photoshop in those days but that never stopped anyone. Have a look at the pictures from an exhibition of Khaldei's work that has just opened in Berlin.

Mind you, Soviet photographers and editors were past masters of this sort of thing, as described in this enthralling book. Orwell knew whereof he wrote. The present lot, photoshop or no photoshop, are mere amateurs.

All eyes on Serbia

Well, some eyes on Serbia and not nearly as many as Serbia thinks or hopes. Next Sunday will see the parliamentary election and, in theory at least, the results will decide whether the country continues to look more or less to the West or turns inward again, isolating itself from its neighbours beyond the odd snarl across the border.

The threat the Serb nationalists issue from time to time is that if the EU continues to be nasty to Serbia, the country will turn eastward to Russia and China. On the whole, it is not clear what that might mean, especially when it comes to China. Will there be investments from that country? And if so, into what? That gas pipe that Russia has been negotiating has not been built yet and, in any case, its purpose is not to supply China but Europe.

Aid? Unlikely. That is not the way China does business, being considerably more hard-headed than the “selfish, capitalist” West that turns mushy when it comes to developing countries at whatever stage of development they are, playing on guilt feelings.

Russia is not going to help Serbia all that much. She did little in the eighties and will not start to get involved in Balkan politics too much now. Incoming President Medvedev may have a greater appetite for foreign adventure than outgoing President, soon to be Prime Minister, Putin but so far we have seen no evidence of that.

What Russia has done is to sign an agreement with President Tadic and Prime Minister Kostunica for the construction of part of the proposed South Stream pipeline. Russia is anxious to see that agreement be finalized, election or no election.

From a certain point of view, Serbia is important to Russia but, from the same point of view, so are Bulgaria, Italy, Austria and Hungary. In other words, Russia’s desire to consolidate her control over the supply of gas to Western Europe is what motivates that country and its biggest industrial conglomerate, Gazprom. (Incidentally, one wonders whether outgoing President Putin will become chairman of Gazprom, as it has been mooted.)

On Friday the International Herald Tribune carried an article about Tomislav Nikolic, leader of the Radical Party, generally described as far-right, though such terminology has little meaning outside Western Europe. The Trib also published an excellent picture of the “charismatic”, as they describe him, Mr Nikolic.

Mr Nikolic’s predecessor, as leader of the ultra-nationalist party (I think we can describe it as such) was Vojislav Seselj, until he turned himself in to the UN tribunal to face war crimes charges. There was a great deal of dissatisfaction among Mr Seselj’s supporters because of what was perceived to be undue pressure put on him by the Serbian government.

Mr Nikolic has ruled out the idea of war to regain Kosovo, a decision that has a good deal to do with the fact that Kosovo is under NATO’s protection and also with the other fact that there will be no military help from Russia, no matter what was said in the heat of the moment when Kosovo declared its de jure independence.

Kosovo has been a diplomatic failure for Russia (and, of course, for Serbia) in a completely unnecessary way. If the negotiations had been conducted slightly differently and if Serbia had been genuinely prepared to negotiate, this messy situation might not have occurred.

Actually, the most interesting comments by Mr Nikolic are about the late unlamented (except by a few supporters around the world) President Miloševič.

The problem with Milosevic, Nikolic says, is that he never finished what he started.

"All the wars Milosevic started, he gave up," Nikolic said. "His biggest mistake is that he was not a person who would take things to the end. I have the popularity that Milosevic had, and my votes come from some of the same people. But we got crazy from his politics. I can't be called another Milosevic."

There were very good reasons why those wars were not finished but fighting them well-nigh finished off the Serbian people. It is hard to understand what Mr Nikolic would have preferred.

Mr Nikolic, whose party is the largest in the parliament and who has an excellent chance of becoming a prime minister, having failed repeatedly in his attempts to become president, seems to be serving up a mixture of nationalism and social control, popular in many parts of post-Communist Eastern and South-East Europe, where moorings disappeared in the nineties.

At the same time he is insisting that Western investors and, above all Western aid-givers have nothing to fear. Serbia will not change under his government. She will co-operate with the Hague tribunal and will continue their efforts to join the European Union – a long-term project, despite the recently signed Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA).

The problem is that the United States and the European Union might cut their aid if Mr Nikolic is elected, though according to some commentators, Vojislav Kostunica will be more of a nuisance for Europe.

But while Serbian liberals portray Nikolic as a radical demagogue, some Western diplomats say he poses less of a threat to Western interests than does Vojislav Kostunica, the Serbian prime minister, who helped lead the revolution that overthrew Milosevic but has now adopted nationalist rhetoric.

"Kostunica is a 19th-century, anti-Western, romantic nationalist," said one senior Western diplomat, who was not authorized to comment publicly on the domestic politics of another country. "Mr. Nikolic is more pragmatic."

A fellow blogger, whose previous professional involvement means that he has forgotten more about the Balkans than I ever knew, told me that I should not underestimate the readiness of Serbs to be “different”. Perish the thought, I replied. How could one underestimate something like that?

The problem is that the EU cannot afford another member that is “different”. We already have Greece that is an ally often in name only but one that relies heavily on subsidies from the European Union.

The situation with the Balkan countries throws up once again the basic problem with that much vaunted common foreign policy – it has no idea what to do about the EU’s neighbours because it is not based on any common interest. All it can do is assimilate those neighbours as well as it can manage and all relations must revolve round the possibility of membership rather than agreements on various matters.

Having assimilated one lot the EU comes up against another set of neighbours and the same problems arise. Once again the only discussion is whether those countries can become members and if so how soon. If not, there is no real plan as to how to deal with them. This militates, for instance, against any such thing as a European policy towards Russia, though the member states, by and large have no individual policies either.

Entirely unsuitable countries become members of the EU, adding to the tensions within while the Commission, its officials and the budding external service struggles with ideas as to what to do with even less suitable countries that lie on the periphery.