Why Russia No Longer Fears the West

Western leaders are stunned because they haven’t realized Russia’s owners no longer respect Europeans the way they once did after the Cold War. Russia thinks the West is no longer a crusading alliance. Russia thinks the West is now all about the money.

Putin’s henchmen know this personally. Russia’s rulers have been buying up Europe for years. They have mansions and luxury flats from London’s West End to France’s Cote d’Azure. Their children are safe at British boarding and Swiss finishing schools. And their money is squirrelled away in Austrian banks and British tax havens.

Putin’s inner circle no longer fear the European establishment. They once imagined them all in MI6. Now they know better. They have seen firsthand how obsequious Western aristocrats and corporate tycoons suddenly turn when their billions come into play. They now view them as hypocrites—the same European elites who help them hide their fortunes.

Once Russia’s powerful listened when European embassies issued statements denouncing the baroque corruption of Russian state companies. But no more. Because they know full well it is European bankers, businessmen and lawyers who do the dirty work for them placing the proceeds of corruption in hideouts from the Dutch Antilles to the British Virgin Islands.

We are not talking big money. But very big money. None other than Putin’s Central Bank has estimated that two thirds of the $56 billion exiting Russia in 2012 might be traceable to illegal activities. Crimes like kickbacks, drug money or tax fraud. This is the money that posh English bankers are rolling out the red carpet for in London.

Behind European corruption, Russia sees American weakness. The Kremlin does not believe European countries – with the exception of Germany – are truly independent of the United States. They see them as client states that Washington could force now, as it once did in the Cold War, not to do such business with the Kremlin.

When Russia sees Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal outbidding each other to be Russia’s best business partner inside the EU (in return for no mention of human rights), they see America’s control over Europe slowly dissolving.

Back in Moscow, Russia’s hears American weakness out of Embassy Moscow. Once upon a time the Kremlin feared a foreign adventure might trigger Cold War economic sanctions where it hurts: export bans on key parts for its oil industry, even being cut out of its access to the Western banking sector. No more.

Russia sees an America distracted: Putin’s Ukrainian gambit was a shock to the U.S. foreign policy establishment. They prefer talking about China, or participating in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Russia sees an America vulnerable: in Afghanistan, in Syria and on Iran—a United States that desperately needs Russian support to continue shipping its supplies, host any peace conference or enforce its sanctions.

Moscow is not nervous. Russia’s elites have exposed themselves in a gigantic manner – everything they hold dear is now locked up in European properties and bank accounts. Theoretically, this makes them vulnerable. The EU could, with a sudden rush of money-laundering investigations and visa bans, cut them off from their wealth. But, time and time again, they have watched European governments balk at passing anything remotely similar to the U.S. Magnitsky Act, which bars a handful of criminal-officials from entering the United States.

All this has made Putin confident, very confident – confident that European elites are more concerned about making money than standing up to him. The evidence is there. After Russia’s strike force reached the outskirts of Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, in 2008, there were statements and bluster, but not a squeak about Russia’s billions. After Russia’s opposition were thrown into show trials, there were concerned letters from the European Union, but again silence about Russia’s billions.

The Kremlin thinks it knows Europe’s dirty secret now. The Kremlin thinks it has the European establishment down to a tee. The grim men who run Putin’s Russia see them like latter-day Soviet politicians. Back in the 1980s, the USSR talked about international Marxism but no longer believed it. Brussels today, Russia believes, talks about human rights but no longer believes in it. Europe is really run by an elite with the morality of the hedge fund: Make money at all costs and move it offshore.

The Kremlin sees its evidence in the former leaders of Britain, France and Germany. Tony Blair now advises the dictatorship in Kazakhstan on how to improve its image in the West. Nicholas Sarkozy was contemplating setting up a hedge fund with money from absolutist Qatar. And Gerhard Schroder is the chairman of the Nord Steam consortium – a majority Gazprom-owned pipeline that connects Russia directly to Germany through the Black Sea.

Russia is confident there will be no Western economic counterattack. They believe the Europeans will not sanction the Russian oligarch money. They believe Americans will not punish the Russian oligarchs by blocking their access to banks. Russia is certain a military counterattack is out of the question. They expect America to only posture. Cancel the G-8? Who cares?

Because Putin has no fear of the West, he can concentrate on what matters back in Russia: holding onto power. When Putin announced he would return to the presidency in late 2011, the main growling question was: why?

The regime had no story to sell. What did Putin want to achieve by never stepping down? Enriching himself? The puppet president he shunted aside, Dmitry Medvedev, had at least sold a story of modernization. What, other than hunger for power, had made Putin return to the presidency? The Kremlin spin-doctors had nothing to spin.

Moscow was rocked by mass protests in December 2011. More than 100,000 gathered within sight of the Kremlin demanding Russia be ruled in a different way. The protesters were scared off the streets, but the problem the regime had in justifying itself remained. Putin had sold himself to the Russian people as the man who would stabilize the state and deliver rising incomes after the chaos of the 1990s. But with Russians no longer fearing chaos, but rather stagnation as the economy slowed – it was unclear what this “stability” was for.

This is where the grand propaganda campaign called the Eurasian Union has come into its own. This is the name of the vague new entity that Putin wants to create out of former Soviet states — the first steps toward which Putin has taken by building a Customs Union with Belarus and Kazakhstan, and he had hoped with a Ukraine run by Viktor Yanuvokych. This is not just about empire; it is about using empire to cover up the grotesque scale of Russian corruption and justify the regime.

Russia would rather have swallowed Ukraine whole, but the show must go on. Russian TV needs glories for Putin every night on the evening news. Russian politics is about spin, not substance. The real substance of Russian politics is the extraction of billions of dollars from the nation and shuttling them into tropical Western tax havens, which is why Russian politics needs perpetual PR and perpetual Putinist drama to keep all this hidden from the Russian people. Outraged Putin has built up a Kremlin fleet of luxury aircraft worth $1 billion? Angry that a third of the $51 billion budget of the Sochi games vanished into kickbacks? Forget about it. Russia is on the march again.

This is why Crimea is perfect Putin. Crimea is no South Ossetia. This is not some remote, mountainous Georgian village inhabited by some dubious ethnicity that Russians have never heard of. Crimea is the heart of Russian romanticism. The peninsula is the only part of the classical world that Russia ever conquered. And this is why the Tsarist aristocracy fell in love with it. Crimea symbolized Russia’s 18th and 19th-century fantasy to conquer Constantinople and liberate Greek Orthodox Christians from Muslim rule. Crimea became the imperial playground: In poetry and palaces, it was extolled as the jewel in the Russian crown.

Crimea is the only lost land that Russians really mourn. The reason is tourism. The Soviet Union built on the Tsarist myth and turned the peninsula into a giant holiday camp full of workers sanitariums and pioneer camps. Unlike, the Russian cities of say northern Kazakhstan, Crimea is a place Russians have actually been. Even today over one million Russians holiday in Crimea every year. It is not just a peninsula; this is Russia’s Club Med and imperial romanticism rolled into one.

Vladimir Putin knows this. He knows that millions of Russians will cheer him as a hero if he returns them Crimea. He knows that European bureaucrats will issue shrill statements and then get back to business helping Russian elites buy London town houses and French chateaux. He knows full well that the United States can no longer force Europe to trade in a different way. He knows full well that the United States can do nothing beyond theatrical military maneuvers at most.

That there were some people shooting also at the Berkut is completely understandable, as one can do only so much with rocks and gasoline against a trained military unit.

That the Ukrainian government needs to investigate who shot at whom and who paid for what is also beyond dispute.

The supposed evidence that the same sniper or group of snipers shot at both -- which would indeed be bizarre, -- comes from what an Olga Bogomolets told the Estonian Premier, who told Ashton, about the type of bullets used. Even if we trust the honesty and the motivation of all this chain of disclosures and alleged hacks, it boils down to the type of bullet. It is not the evidence the RF pumps it up to be. Ashton's reaction is, naturally, surprise, -- it does not point to her prior knowledge of the allegation.

Further, think. How would shooting at both side benefit the rebels? They used firearms openly on the Berkut, -- it's not like they pretend they never shot back. The Berkut used firearms clandestinely at first, but in the end we have enough video and forensic evidence of Berkut shooting live ammunition. That Yanukovich thugs at some point might want a "proof" that someone shot at them, I understand, but I don't see what was there for the rebels to gain beyond the video and ballistic evidence already available.

Here is the damning part of the transcript according to the putinista source:

Paet: "And still, people are seriously concerned about the fact that the new coalition is unwilling to investigate what really occurred there . The understanding of the fact that somebody from the new coalition, not Yanukovych, was behind those snipers is becoming more and more strengthened with every passing day."
Ashton: “I think we do want to investigate. I mean, I didn’t pick that up, that’s interesting. Gosh,”
[...]
Paet: “And second, what was quite disturbing, this same Olga Bogomolets told as well that all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides.” He also added: “She also showed me some photos and said that as a medical doctor she can say that, the same type of bullets were used on both police and protestors.”
Ashton: “Well, yeah…that’s, that’s terrible.”

Voice of Russia

There is nothing here of substance.

Let us now compare this episode with Putin setting up occupation of Crimea and surprise war game, removing all insignia from his troops (making them instantly illegal combatants not protected by laws of war), and then lying with a smirk how none of that really happened. You want liars, -- here's one, go, catch.

he’ll get to keep it

He may. The real question is, how he would accomplish the anschluss. Before the invasion, he had a clear path to a legal acquisition of Crimea through economic pressure, a referendum and first independence, then on some new pretext, annexation. Note that given the Crimea's history as a longstanding Russian imperial acquisition outside of Ukraine, everyone outside of Crimea would just shrug it off.

Now he foreclosed on that option: no referendum can be legitimate after the invasion, even if he withdraws, even if some drooling idiot like Carter certifies the result. The Russian Federation has demonstrated an aggressive attitude and an aggressive capability to invade Crimea. Fair plebiscite is impossible. What will follow is the only thing the Sovs know: they will foment a loyal to them minority till such time that it wins an election in Crimea once. Then it is back to the USSR all the way.

RF has just put itself on course for another USSR and another Cold War on a geographically smaller stage. The question becomes: have the Sovs learned their lesson?

“Europe is all wimps and Obama is incapable of rational action”

Fully agree with this part of your point.
Not much with the rest.

The West is intelectually incapable to get off the manichean scheme “we good, Soviets bad”. If you could have watched the political shows in Europe, you’d be astonished at the number of times politicians and journalists said “Soviet Union” instead of “Russia”, even though, the new generation of Russians, born in the late 80ies, NEVER lived in Soviet Union.

There is NO agression on Ukraine.
It’s highly ironical that the West and the putschistes from Kiev rely on the gesture of a communist drunkard like Krustchev, who attached Crimea to the SSR of Ukraine in 1954, to talk about “legitimacy”. Crimea has NEVER been truly ukrainian, since its conquest by Catherine the Great army in 1774, it belonged to Russia and later to SSR of Russia.

Anyway, the will of the people of Crimea will be known on March 16, when they decide by referendum on the future of their autonomous republic.
Ten days more to wait.

Demos - people, Kratos -power; that’s what the democracy is about. No to EU, no to NATO, no to UN, all non-elected entities; enough with them to make the law and oppose the peoples’ will, like they did also in Bosnia and Serbia and now in Ukraine.

Paet: “And second, what was quite disturbing, this same Olga Bogomolets told as well that all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides.” He also added: “She also showed me some photos and said that as a medical doctor she can say that, the same type of bullets were used on both police and protestors.”

Olga Bogomolets is a public figure and a respectable doctor, who has actually taken part in the Maidan movement from the onset and was tending to the wounded victims herself, along with other doctors. You can google her name. She certainly cannot be suspected of being a Yanukovich sympathizer. She saw the wounded and the dead herself, and also showed photos to the Estonian minister, who, being not too crazy about Russia himself, wouldn’t go broadcasting the news if he believed it was just a rumour made of thin air.

ANYONE who watched this matter unfolding on world media would have seen live video streams of the right wing thugs at work. Including policemen being beaten to death and then being set on fire . I DID see it. But the most important thing to keep in mind is the US, UK and EU have colluded to put in power a neo-nazi bunch of thugs, 6 ministers, including the vice-premier minister, are members of the ukrainian nationalist party rebaptized “svoboda”.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=58b_1392877307

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1di9r5_pravy-sektor-les-neonazis-ukrainiens-moteur-de-la-revolte_news?start=81

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1diadq_maidan-kiev-des-manifestants-pacifiques_news?from_related=related.page.int.behavior-meta2.049c50b121800bd05168f00671f97288139359884

That the Ukrainian government needs to investigate who shot at whom and who paid for what is also beyond dispute.

The radicals in Kiev have said NO to an investigation of the sniper shootings, which is why in light of this information, no one there trusts them.

How would shooting at both side benefit the rebels?

The Maidan radicals knew they could never gain power legitimately through the democratic process and therefore needed a 'bloody shirt' to rally support for complete overthrow of the government.

Their many attempts at provoking such a response from police using rocks, clubs, and fire bombs had failed, and they knew a peaceful settlement was close to being finalized which meant their 'revolution' would be over.

There needs to be a full accounting of the incident including an investigation into who was leading the protesters into that unprotected kill zone.

Hi!

I think, the Soviets are all bad. There are of course some accomplishments that have occurred despite them in the USSR, but the Soviet system is all, to the core irredeemably corrupt and evil -- the Evil Empire. EU may yet rise in its own evilhood, but at this point I fully understand the Ukrainian nation's decision to stick with Europe and not stay in Soviet Eurasia. It was not an easy decision for them, -- there were jokes about being stuck between a Moskal and a Gaystapo, but the final choice is there. I understand and applaud it. Maybe one day the Russian people, -- get their own maidan and be a great nation again. Now the last thing they should worry about is what Ukraine does with itself. Ukraine is gone from the Russian sphere for the foreseeable future. Russian is no longer a nation attracting peoples. Everyone fears them; no one respects them. Every other people under the Soviet system used the past 22 years to build up a national identity and to eradicate Sovietism in their lives. RF instead chose Stalinist nostalgia, military buildup and carbohydrate extraction economy. This is the outcome.

I understand that the Crimea and Donetsk-Kharkiv are historical Russian areas. If Putin did not invade with his unmarked little green men, there would have been a possibility of a plebiscite in a calmer environment. I don't think the Ukies should want an ethnically Russian, culturally Soviet appendage to deal with forever, either. Maybe one day a convincing plebiscite with reputable foreign observers can happen. It cannot happen so long as Putin is in power anymore. He is a discredited dictator, an aggressor, and a Soviet revanchist. Why would anyone trust for a second a "statesman" whose assessment of the 20 century is that the breakup of the USSR -- not the Second World War, not the murder of million innocents by Hitler, not the breakup, for example, of the Austro-Hungarian empire, but the fact that no one wants to be in the Soviet prison if they can help it -- is the greatest tragedy the world has known. He is a dangerous and delusional maniac with nukes.

Democracy is not my favorite form of government, but Democracy spoke in Ukraine. They have a legitimate government, -- the same Rada that had been elected alongside Yanukovith now impeached him. That possibly some regions would want maybe one day to secede is neither here or there now that we have a military confrontation engineered by Putin on the territory that does not belong to him.

The radicals in Kiev have said NO

Well, they are the government, not you and not me. Like I said, from looking at the transcript there is nothing to investigate even if there was an incident of sniper provocateur. Firearms were used by both sides. Provocations happened on both sides.

needed a 'bloody shirt'

There are videos when it is clear the Berkut is shooting, and at whom, and people are dying. They got their bloody shirt plenty.

they could never gain power legitimately through the democratic process

Yeah, right. Then why Yanukovith refused to schedule early elections? Why didn't the Berkut encircle the approaches to the Maidan so the "radicals" get no food, water and tires to burn? I can tell you why: because they would have enough maidans everywhere. The Yanuk regime lost all legitimacy when they used militarized police on the demonstrations in December - January.

Like I said, from looking at the transcript there is nothing to investigate even if there was an incident of sniper provocateur. Firearms were used by both sides. Provocations happened on both sides.

I don't disagree, but there are arrest warrants out for the entire Yanukovich cabinet. You can't charge someone with mass-murder while refusing to investigate the crime, unless your name is Robespierre.

There are videos when it is clear the Berkut is shooting, and at whom, and people are dying.

Militant tryzubs getting killed in gunfights with police is one thing, snipers shooting unarmed protesters huddled on the ground is quite another, but I think you know that.

Then why Yanukovith refused to schedule early elections?

He was following the Ukrainian Constitution...I know a quaint notion these days.

The Yanuk regime lost all legitimacy when they used militarized police on the demonstrations in December - January.

I disagree. In fact the Party of Regions won five Parliamentary elections in January, so it was quite clear the Maidan rabble didn't have a national mandate to overthrow Yanukovitch.

Ukraine, 2010 - the last legal presidential election. Red - votes for Timoschenko (45%) (most of the people speak ukrainian), blue - votes for Yanoukovich (48.5%)(most speak russian) . What happened in February in Kiev is that the people from the red colored areas overthrew the government elected by people from the blue areas. The first attempt to disfranchise and suppress the second!

The East and South-East areas are more densly populated, industrial and richer than the poor agricultural East. The nazi parties obtained up to 40% of votes in Lwov region. It's from there that their militarily trained militia came to Maidan, Kiev, to create havoc. Example: the Right Sector, a coalition of right-wing ultra-nationalist radicals. Their leader Dmytro Yarosh (L) during a rally in Maidan Square, Kiev February 21, 2014

Far-right group "Right Sector" train on Maïdan Square in central Kiev, January 25, 2014.

Anyone who watched this matter unfolding on world media would have seen live video streams of the right wing thugs at work. Including policemen being beaten to death and then being set on fire . I did see it. But the most important thing to keep in mind is the US, UK and EU have colluded to put in power a neo-nazi bunch of thugs. They were not elected, thus they are illegitimate.

In a democracy when you're dissatisfied with your elected leaders you impeach them or, you wait it out until the next election when you vote for the other guy. What's the argument in favor of the violent overthrow of a legitimately elected president? Who's next to be deposed in this way? The French president (17% of the population still trust him)? Canada Prime Ministre? Ialian president? Poland president? WHO? Barack Obama (38% trust him)?

US has repeatedly accused Russia of “invading” the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, ignoring the fact that an existing 1997 agreement between Russia and Ukraine allows Moscow to keep up to 25,000 Black Sea Fleet troops in the peninsula. Actually there are some 17,000 troops in Crimea.

Russia hits back at US ‘barefaced cynicism and double standards’ over Ukraine:

“We will only say, yet again, that we are dealing with unacceptable arrogance and a pretense of having a monopoly on the truth.” “What about the bombing of former Yugoslavia or the invasion of Iraq over a fabricated cause?” “On the pretext of providing security to Americans who simply happened to be in conflict zones, the US invaded Lebanon in 1958 and the Dominican Republic in 1965, attacked tiny Grenada in 1983, bombed Libya in 1986, and occupied Panama three years later.” “Still, they dare to blame Russia of ‘armed aggression’ when it stands up for its compatriots – who comprise the majority of Crimea’s population – in order to prevent ultra-nationalist forces from organizing yet another bloody Maidan.”

Last but not least, Obama should play nice to Putin. Don’t forget that every aspect of the manned and unmanned US space program – including NASA, other government agencies, private aerospace company’s and crucially important US national security payloads – are highly dependent on Russian rocketry and are therefore potentially at risk.

Americans are unaware of the extent to which the US and Russi space programs are inextricably interdependent. Since the forced retirement of NASA’s space shuttle program in 2011, America completely lost its own human spaceflight capability. So now the only ticket for astronauts to space and back is by way of the Russian Soyuz capsule.

Yes, if the government is serious about charging Yuanuk and his gang, it will have to review the allegation about the sniper, — his defense will bring that up. But it is not up to an Estonian minister to dictate to them when.

Constitution is important but also living people are important. Clearly, the country was in a profound crisis and his response to it was Berkut.

Party of Regions, for the most part, deserted Yuanuk. I do not dispute he was once elected, but his behavior during the Maidan exposed him as a criminal character.

policemen being beaten to death and then being set on fire

I posted several articles about the Ukrainian revolution on FR:

Current events: Ukraine
Escalation in Ukraine
Address to Owners of Weapons (Ukraine)
Sustaining Ukraine's breakthrough: EU expertise and markets are essential [Soros]
Ukrainian Major Archbishop appeals for solidarity and warns the danger of civil war is not over
Alarm in Ukraine as Putin Puts Russian Troops on Alert
A Jewel in Two Crowns [Soviet Sevastopol]
NATO warns Russia to cease and desist in Ukraine

You don't need to educate me or the regular readers of my series about what happened. Of course it was a violent revolution driven by a well-organized Ukrainian nationalist movement. Well done.

you wait it out until the next election when you vote for the other guy

Right, ordinarily. Apparently enough people got p_ssed off by the Yanuk government not to do so. Government lost the consent of enough people, who were sufficiently passionate about overthrowing it. It is not the norm, -- no one says it is.

Who's next to be deposed in this way?

You list some attractive candidates.

existing 1997 agreement between Russia and Ukraine allows Moscow to keep up to 25,000 Black Sea Fleet troops in the peninsula

In Sevastopol. Not in Simferopol and not for the purposes of occupying local seats of government.

Back to your larger red-and-blue point. Yes, Ukraine is demographically divided country. It may very well be that the passionate, pro-European West might be unable to satisfy the Sovietism of the inert but still quite numerous East. So, what Putin should have done is to stay our militarily and let the situation develop in Ukraine as a matter internal to Ukraine. He, being a Soviet thug by mentality and training, foreclosed on the democratic option.

The probable partition of Ukraine is yet to come

Yes, possibly. My only corrective is that it is up to the people of Ukraine, not to linguists in armchairs to partition it, if it is to be partitioned at all. Further, the people's opinions change. Some Russian speakers joined the Maidan; some even died. Some Ukrainians have gotten fully Sovietized during the past near a hundred years of artificial selection. That some build a barricade and others cling to defend a Soviet-era idol. Their minds might change again. At this point Ukraine has a legitimate government in Kiev, and a constitution. All foreign troops need to be out, and the country needs to enter a period of calm, and then the Ukrainian people of all linguistic and ethnic background may decide what to do with themselves.

Also remember that the principle that each ethnicity needs its own internationally recognized border is itself questionable. During the Cold War one of the principles that was developed by both sides jointly was the principle of inviolability of borders, no matter how much someone does not like them. The USSR loved it: it meant, Brezhnev could keep Poland half way into Germany, keep "Kaliningrad" and keep Transcarpathia. Well, now this Cold-War principle means Ukraine gets to stay within the present borders and if it wants to partition it should do it as an internal matter.

why did the US gave the opposition $5 Billion to use the force of arms

We gave them $5 billion worth of old tires?

Seriously, Ukraine needs more aid. It is a large country that is broke.

“What about the bombing of former Yugoslavia or the invasion of Iraq over a fabricated cause?” “On the pretext of providing security to Americans who simply happened to be in conflict zones, the US invaded Lebanon in 1958 and the Dominican Republic in 1965, attacked tiny Grenada in 1983, bombed Libya in 1986, and occupied Panama three years later.”

It's a long list. In none of these, however, was the US trying to partition a country or alter existing borders, or demanded autonomy to the minority in that country that might speak English with American accent.

Regarding the space program, if RF decides to withdraw itself, they are free to do so. Same applies to any area of cooperation that developed after the Cold War.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.